The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask for leave to be able to present a Members' Statement today?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In celebration of Atlantic Book Week, being held from May 18-25, I rise today to recognize writer, Michael Crummey, a native of Buchans -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: - whose latest novel River Thieves is published by Doubleday Canada, has been nominated for two Atlantic Writing Awards.

River Thieves is nominated for a Booksellers' Choice Award and the Thomas Head Raddall Atlantic Fiction Prize. These awards will be presented on May 24 during the Atlantic Book Festival Awards ceremony in Halifax.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to point out that this is not the first recognition Mr. Crummey has received for his novel River Thieves. River Thieves was short-listed for the prestigious Giller Prize and won the 2001 Winterset Award for Excellence in Newfoundland Writing. Mr. Crummey's book was also a finalist for the Books in Canada First Novel Award and the Commonwealth Writer's Prize for Best Book in the Canada-Caribbean region.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this House will join me in congratulating Michael Crummey on his literary achievements and in wishing him continued success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

On Saturday, May 11, I had the opportunity to attend a municipal Round Table discussion, Partner For Success, at the College of the North Atlantic-Placentia campus. This Round Table discussion was organized by the Avalon Gateway Economic Development Board and consisted of town councils and local service district associations throughout the economic Zone 18.

Presentations were put forward by representatives of the Regional Economic Development Board, Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Department of Environment, Department of Government Services and Lands, Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. There was great interaction by all present and I have been informed that plans are being made to organize a followup based on the success of this event.

The entire day issues important to all municipalities in my district were discussed including: roles of mayors and councillors; conflict of interest issues; water systems and water quality; waster management concerns; and government agencies and their contributions to the Province.

Mr. Speaker, all the people involved with municipal government in my district, as with most districts in the Province, consist of 100 per cent volunteers, and I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their commitment to our Province and to my district. This Round Table discussion gave all involved an opportunity to share the challenges they all face on a daily basis, an opportunity to learn from others in the region and most importantly, an opportunity to explore common avenues that may be able to address some of their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to have the opportunity to be the guest speaker for the group luncheon. I spoke on another important issue to the entire region I represent and that is the Voisey's Bay Development.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, a very successful day for those involved and I certainly send out congratulations to the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

- Avalon Gateway Regional Economic Development Board on the excellent organization of the Round Table discussion and I wish them all the best in their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to give tribute to Francis Patey, a writer from St. Anthony on his recent release of the book Veterans of the North. Mr. Patey contacted me approximately ten months ago when he started to create a book to honour the war veterans from the Great Northern Peninsula and coastal Labrador. I was pleased to assist him with contacts throughout Labrador and to aid him in his work. These veterans fought valiantly in both World Wars, the Korean War, and the Gulf War.

Mr. Patey put a considerable amount of time and effort into writing this book. He visited people from all over Jackson's Arm to Birchy Head and many areas in between to take notes on war stories and collect photos. Overall, 375 pictures of veterans and seventy pictures of battlefields were collected for this masterpiece.

To complete this book, Patey spent many long days over nine months doing research and writing. When the book was completed it landed directly into the hands of an eager publisher. Creative Book Publishers is an associated company of Robinson Blackmore and have agreed to take on this task.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate Mr. Patey on the completion and publication of his book which will help preserve an important part of the history of this Province. I urge all members to take the time to read his work.

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: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the winners of the 2002 Skills Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Competition which took place in St. John's on May 3.

The fifth Annual Provincial Skilled Trade and Technology Competition brought together about 250 high school, post-secondary, and apprenticeship finalist to compete in over thirty trade and technology categories.

The winners of the various categories are located across the entire Province, including several from my own district of Carbonear- Harbour Grace.

This competition was held as part of Skills Day, which also featured a career fair, several demonstrations, several professional development sessions, and a tour of the Prince Phillip Drive Campus of the College of the North Atlantic.

The gold medal winners of this competition will now represent the Province in Vancouver on May 31 and June 1. This competition will be broadcast live via the Internet for the benefit of all those who may be interested.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all those involved in Career Day 2002, and wish all finalists best of luck in the Vancouver competition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to speak to a matter of provincial importance; to congratulate the two new MPs who were elected last night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. John Efford, who was elected in the District of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, is with us today. Congratulations to Mr. Efford and, of course, to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - Mr. Rex Barnes, who was elected in the District of Gander-Grand Falls. On behalf of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Certainly, on behalf of the Official Opposition, Mr. Speaker, we want to pledge our support to work with these two new members to improve our lot within the context of Confederation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to take this opportunity as well to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today the former Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Port de Grave and now the newly elected MP for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Mr. John Efford.

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, my questions today are for the Premier and they concern generally the provincial economy and government's continued use of an economic measure called Gross Domestic Product. I would like to ask the Premier this question: Wouldn't he admit that, for large national economies such as Japan, the United States, which have huge internal markets, that Gross Domestic Products, or GDP as it is known, would be an accurate measure of how their economies are doing? But, for economies like Newfoundland and Labrador, like Ireland, whose economies are dependent totally, or almost totally, on export markets, wouldn't he agree that GDP gives a very misleading and false impression of how our economy is doing? Wouldn't he also agree that all it has really done for the Premier and the government, in their use of it, is to turn a struggling economy, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, into a statistical boom town?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is most important for Newfoundland and Labrador, as everyone in this Legislature would recognize, is job growth, and that is an indicator that we have led the country in, in two of the last three years, and projected to lead the country in again this year. That is the real indicator of whether individuals and families and communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are better off today than they were last year.

Everybody here recognizes that we have led and will continue to lead the country in job growth. I think it was 5,400 jobs last month, compared to a year ago, and the unemployment rate has gone down to the lowest point since they have been keeping the statistics in the mid-1970s.

Maybe the Opposition House Leader should have checked with his own leader before he left, because his own leader, while he does the same as the Opposition House Leader is doing today, the real Leader of the Opposition, I should add, talking about GPD and suggesting that we use the statistics, the Leader of the Opposition has criticized the use of GDP the same way that the Opposition House Leader is doing today, but then, in a speech to the Tory faithful in the presence of the national leader, Joe Clark, he indicated that the GDP should be used as an indicator of the contribution that Newfoundland and Labrador makes to Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Unlike the Premier, I happened to be present at that speech and that is not what was said at that speech. In fact, the questions today relate to it. The Premier can use the continued use of gross domestic product all he wants, but wouldn't he agree, Mr. Speaker - wouldn't the Premier admit - isn't it a fact that GDP does not take into account, or it only takes into account, all the wealth that has been created, that it does not take into account how that wealth is being distributed amongst regions of the Province? And wouldn't he admit, Mr. Speaker, that GDP in this Province is primarily being driven by the oil and gas industry whose profits, almost all of them, are being lost through outside ownership, corporate profits that are going to be used to benefit regions outside Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do recognize that the real Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition House Leader, has not been at functions where I have spoken; because, if he was, he would understand, Mr. Speaker, that I do not talk about GDP. I talk about jobs. Just like I did in the answer to the first question, I talk about jobs and job growth, and the fact that we do have, since statistics have been kept in the mid-1970s, the most people working in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador since they have been keeping records; it is in this year, Mr. Speaker. That is real economic growth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should remind him that his leader, whom he passed it over to so proudly and said: Here, buddy, it is yours - or whatever he said that day - his leader, to whom he was so proud to pass over the job, and is now working twice as hard, working twice as hard doing two or three jobs over there for half the money - I will never understand it, Mr. Speaker; I will never understand it myself - his leader did say, in the presence of Mr. Clark, at a fundraising dinner here - not the one a week ago when hardly anybody showed up in Gander, not that one, when only half as many people showed up in Gander as they expected, Mr. Speaker, but down here in the hotel in St. John's - with the federal leader, where the provincial Leader of the Opposition stated in the presence of the federal leader that the GDP -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - should be used as the real indicator of the great contribution that Newfoundland and Labrador makes to Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to take his seat.

PREMIER GRIMES: - and the only indicator that should be used was GDP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The real leader of this party is the Member from Humber West. If the Premier does not understand that, call an election and we will find out that he is the only real leader in this Legislature, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question: Premier, would you not admit that gross domestic product, GDP, which you so flagrantly used to try to create a certain perception in the Province, that by ignoring the distribution of income, that GDP hides the fact that a rising tide doesn't lift all boats, and that your government's use of this measure is a blatant and misleading attempt to tell people, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that things are better than they have ever been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do recognize that the Opposition House Leader does not appear at public functions with me and doesn't know what I say on behalf of the government; good, personal friend of mine that he is. As a matter of fact, again, I don't understand why he took a cut in pay and is over there working twice as hard as he always did before, doing his own job and protecting his leader on most occasions here in the House, that the people of the Province have seen on television day after day.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this: Economists and people who give financial statements talk about GDP all the time. I don't talk about GDP. Let me say it again, Mr. Speaker: I talk about jobs, because that is a real indicator of whether a person is going to be able to take care of themselves, whether a family is going to be provided for, whether a community is going to continue to grow and prosper.

They cannot deny - the Opposition would not dare challenge Stats Canada and say that the group that has been keeping statistics since the mid-1970s and have now concluded that there are more jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador in any time since they have been keeping the statistics, are all wrong and therefore things must be desperate in Newfoundland and Labrador because there are more people working than there ever have been.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I talk about jobs and we are proud of the fact that we are the government at a time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to take his seat.

PREMIER GRIMES: - when there are more jobs than there ever have been in the history of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

People in the Province who talk to me are no different than the people who talk to the Premier. The difference is, who is listening and who is not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: They are confused. They say to me: Ed, what does GDP mean? It could mean a great day politically, as in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Or, Mr. Speaker, it could mean, for the 50,000 people left, going departed people.

The fact of the matter is this. Now, this is something that the Premier cannot ignore because this is Stats Canada, too. In view of the fact that he wants to hang his hat on this issue, on Stats Canada, isn't it a fact that per capita, GDP, which means the population of the Province as it relates to the wealth that we are generating, actually portrays population decline as economic growth? In other words, because 50,000 people have left the Province in the last five years, that unto itself has contributed to the rise in GDP. Wouldn't you admit that, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, maybe the Opposition House Leader is a bit confused. He seems to be the one here today who is obsessed with talking about GDP. Mr. Speaker, it is not an issue that I have raised in this Legislature today. It is not an issue that I have brought up. The fact of the matter is, when I travel all over Newfoundland and Labrador, what is important is whether or not people are actually working, and to them what is important is whether or not they have an opportunity to work somewhere close to the community that they would choose and prefer to stay in and live in, because there are job opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador in records numbers. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, many people in the Province recognize that most of them are here in and around the capital city and the Avalon region when they would like for them to be more broadly dispersed all over the Island and into Labrador.

That is what we talk about everyday, Mr. Speaker. That is what we work with. We do not bother with the statistics other than to say that they are there. Other people quote them. You cannot get away from them. We do not try to use them out of context. We recognize that on two factors, GDP and Job Growth, we happen to be leading the nation which is probably why, for the first time in thirty-something years, the government received a credit upgrade from the rating agencies which was unheard of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - in the seventeen years that the party opposite was in power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: So, in not answering the question, I can only assume that one of the economic policies of the government is to drive 50,000 people out, drive up the GDP and tell everyone how great it is. That is what this government has been doing for the last six years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Premier this question: Wouldn't he admit that if his government used a more accurate economic measure, called the Gross Provincial Product, called GPP, that if they used that measure that it would reflect and take into account and present a more realistic, a more true and accurate picture of the provincial economy? Is the Premier aware, for example, that if he used that measure that it would take into account all of the wealth that the Province has created that has left this Province and would look at indicators like disposable income, and look at how wealth is dispersed, and wouldn't he admit that if he used Growth Provincial Product, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would actually see the failure of your economic policies and this government's economic policies over the last seven to eight years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we would gladly use any statistical indicator that anyone wanted to reference at any point in time because we are extremely proud of the record of the last seven or eight years. We, by action of this government, have not driven anybody out of Newfoundland and Labrador. What we have accomplished is this. We have accomplished almost the complete and total replacement of the job losses associated with the closure of the cod fishery in 1992, which devastated the Province to the point of taking almost 40,000 to 50,000 jobs out instantaneously. This government, through its diligent, dedicated effort and commitment has replaced almost every single one of those jobs and then added a few extras. That is what we have been about, Mr. Speaker, for the last seven or eight years; not driving anybody out of anywhere, but providing and replacing opportunities that were lost as a result of an action taken, unfortunately by a federal Progressive Conservative government that had no choice at the time. We have dedicated ourselves to making this place better over time, not trying to drive anybody away, as the Opposition House Leader would suggest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Since this member became Premier the only things that I have seen him accomplish is what is contained in our policy manual of 1999, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question. If we want a true reflection of how good the economy is doing under the management of this Liberal Administration, I would like to ask him these few questions: Would he commit today to use gross provincial product as the true economic measure of how the economy is doing? Secondly, if he is so convinced that the economy is doing well why is it that disposable incomes have not risen in thirteen years anyway? How is it that we have the highest child poverty rate in Canada? Why is it that housing starts outside of St. John's are the lowest they have been since 1989? Why is it that you can continue to stand up and say things are better than they have ever been when every economic indicator says to you otherwise?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that the Opposition House Leader, the real Leader of the Opposition, has raised these particular points because it shows again, Mr. Speaker, the difference in attitude and approach. Their approach is always to try to find the negative in any number, try to look at it as the worst case scenario, try to see the glass as half empty. Our attitude, Mr. Speaker, is to recognize what is in all of the statistical indicators, try to find what is good for Newfoundland and Labrador, to build on it, and see the glass as half full. It is all about attitude and approach.

Mr. Speaker, I commend him on waving around the Blue Book - I do not have a copy - the Blue Book for 1999 because it was his platform, Mr. Speaker, in which he, when he was the real leader - he is still the real leader but he actually had the title. He put in a statement saying: we believe in research and development and we will promote research and development. Now, the leader from Humber West will not allow research and development to occur in Placentia because it might cause something good to happen for Newfoundland and Labrador. So, I guess in that sense he is not the real leader anymore -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - because the Blue Book that he wrote and ran an election on very successfully, Mr. Speaker, almost successful enough to form the government, great vote for his party. But, now parts of his platform -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: We still believe in it, Mr. Speaker, because the good ideas that were in it, we will gladly do them any day because we are a government committed to action; not arguing over who owns the good idea, but the good idea, we will gladly implement it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has chosen today to focus on jobs, as it relates to how wealth is disbursed in regions of the Province and how well we are doing. I would like to ask him this question. How is it, Mr. Speaker, that this Premier and this government continues to advocate that ore will leave this Province for a period of thirty to thirty-five years without knowing where it is going to come back? How is it that he continues to advocate that ore from Voisey's Bay Nickel will create jobs in Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba? How does that, Premier, square with your vision of creating jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me shed some light on that matter from two points of view. One, Mr. Speaker, is this, in the latest statistics last month from Stats Canada, the unemployment rate went down in every single region of the Province except St. John's and the Avalon Peninsula, where it went up. Now, the unemployment rate did not go down in Central Newfoundland and the South Coast and the West Coast and the Northern Peninsula and the Labrador because people were not going to work, and it did not go up in St. John's. The unemployment rate went up in St. John's, and it did not go up, only for one reason: more people went looking for work than actually got work. So people went to work all over the Province. That is what is recorded through the statistics everywhere.

On the issue of ore leaving the Province, Mr. Speaker, maybe I have not made myself clear. We have never negotiated, and are not negotiating now, any proposal to have any ore leave Newfoundland and Labrador, ever. We are negotiating a proposal that sees the ore being made into a concentrate which goes through an $800 million plant that employs 500 or 600 people. But, it is not new to you because your ad campaign seems to say: We will ship ore out of the Province.

We will not ship ore out of the Province. We never have planned to ship ore out of the Province. We are not planning it now, we were not planning it last year, and we are not planning it next week. We will talk about the details if we can get a deal, which the Opposition is frightened to death that we might actually get a deal, and we will gladly deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me make that clear, Mr. Speaker. For clarity for the Opposition, who are running a false ad campaign about ore -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - we are not proposing that a single spoonful of ore ever leave the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, this morning the national news headlines talked about the health care system facing difficulties. There was a report that was prepared for the Deputy Ministers of Health in the country, that concludes that the health system is having some serious difficulties. Mr. Speaker, that is no real news to us, not in this Province, but of particular note is the commentary -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Of particular note, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, of particular note is the commentary about our public health system. Given the most recent events, and given our mismanagement and disjointed approach in dealing with the arsenic issue in Chapel's Cove, can the minister tell us today what changes he has made in the system to ensure that the people of this Province have confidence that someone is out there protecting their health?

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 one thing this minister can say with absolute certainty is that the hon. member opposite certainly does nothing on a daily basis to raise the confidence level of anyone in this Province. If you were to listen to him -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, every day that the hon. member rises, it is nothing but doom and gloom. I would suggest to him that he might take time to - surely it is a matter of whether the glass is half empty or half full. Surely, from his perspective, it cannot be always half empty.

The report that he references, Mr. Speaker, talks about the issues of public health, and he raises a very important issue to all of the people of this Province. I say to him, and I say to all the people in this Province, and hon. members in this House, that this government is committed to trying to ensure that the health of the people of this Province is protected -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - whatever measures are required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that I ask questions that are pertinent to the people of the Province and I am glad that he acknowledges that they are important questions.

Can the minister now, today, advise this House whether or not his department has conducted a complete review of public health services in this Province, and be able to restore confidence in this Province's ability to address the issues of environmental health, disease prevention, and health promotion. Has he conducted that kind of comprehensive review?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, yes, in fact, this department, along with the other departments that the hon. member has referenced, have been working quite closely and we have an ongoing committee that is looking at the issues that the hon. member references. We are, on a regular basis, monitoring and dealing with issues that arise in this Province. I also indicate and remind the hon. member, as I said to him in this House on a number of occasions, in response to other matters that he has raised, that we are at the present time developing a strategic health plan which we have said, and I have said in this House, that I will be rolling out in a matter of weeks to all of the people of this Province, a strategic health plan that will lay down a framework that will give direction to all of the policies that are presently in place, and it will be developed in the years ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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, it is probably a good time to ask this question, if the strategic plan is coming out soon. Will the minister finally acknowledge that government's current approach of fragmentation and dividing those issues between environment, between government services and health and community services, has created problems and is not in the best interests of the public of this Province? And, will he finally acknowledge that the whole issue of environmental health should come under the auspices of the Province's medical health officers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member provides me with the opportunity to speak again to the strategic health plan, which I have indicated we will be introducing shortly, and to remind the hon. member and all hon. members of this House, that it is, in fact, a Liberal government that started, first of all, the Strategic Economic Plan, that followed up with a Strategic Social Plan, which is a model for everyone in this country, and it is this government that will deliver on the strategic health plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It is regarding the section of highway between the Ashuanapi River and the Esker turnoff, that has deteriorated to the extent where it is a danger to the travelling public, it is a deterrent to tourism, and it is a hazard to truckers who depend on this road to make their living and causing them huge repair bills as they travel over the road.

I ask the minister: Given the short season in Labrador, when will work begin? Because you have committed to doing some work on that section, when will that work begin? How much money are you committing to it, and how many kilometres do you intend to upgrade?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We announced in the budget that we were going to do some work on that particular section of the road. We have allocated $800,000 to do the work and we anticipate that it will probably be around thirty-five kilometres.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister what he intends to do about the other 100 kilometres that is in just as bad of shape, because that section of the road is about 130 kilometres? The least, I say to the minister, you could do - seeing you are taking $97 million from the transportation agreement - is leave us with good roads to drive on, as a start. I ask the minister what he intends to do about the other 100 kilometres of road that, according to your statement just now, you do not intend to touch, that is in just as bad a condition as the thirty kilometres you are planning to repair?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The money for this section of the highway is coming out of the Provincial Capital Roads Program. We announced $800,000 to do thirty-five kilometres. We have the same situation in a lot of districts. I visit most districts in this Province. We have a lot of roads that need repairs, and each district will get an allocation in terms of doing some work. We are doing the same thing in Labrador West as we are doing in other districts around this Province. Tenders will be called for this work within the next two or three weeks and hopefully, within the next month or so, the work will be finished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It may be true what the minister is saying, but the difference is other districts did not have $97 million in a fund that they could use for transportation. I ask the minister again: Why does he not commit funding that will take care of the 120 kilometres of road that needs to be done rather than just thirty and leaving the rest in a state of disrepair which people will not travel over and that has caused truckers, who are making their livelihoods, untold problems?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to remind the hon. member that the money in the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was not allocated to do the roads in Labrador. The money that was in that fund was to provide marine services in Labrador and what this government has done is said that we will finance the marine services in Labrador, as we did on the Southwest Coast of Newfoundland. Back in 1995 there was $55 million that was allocated for the Southwest ferry services and we rolled it into the general revenue of the Province because it was the best fiscal thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: It was the best fiscal thing to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: The money that was in that Transportation Initiative Fund was to provide marine services. What this government has done is committed to the Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and we will continue to the fund marine services now, forever, out of provincial revenues.

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.

I would like to ask the Minister of Environment, considering we have over 400,000 vehicles registered in this Province, between 6 million and 8 million litres of oil drain from engines every year in this Province, if he could tell us what happens with that oil? How much of it is recycled? How much of it is dumped, such as in drums in the White Hills, the ecological sensitive area of White Hills that it was dumped in last week? When is the minister going to implement a Province-wide, provincially run, oil recycling program to eliminate that type of risk from happening again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from the Opposition critic. That is an issue that we intend to deal with, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, we will have regulations forthcoming very shortly and a program will be announced in very short order to help deal with the issue. As we are dealing with waste management in the Province with a full waste management strategy for the Province, which has just been recently announced and which is getting a very good public response. That is a serious issue. It is on our list to deal with, and there will more details very shortly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the 2001 Annual Report of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division. This annual report highlights the activities of the review division through 2001 and further reflects the results of this government's commitment to assist injured workers and employers with the Worker's Compensation system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to move the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS there is only one MRI scanner in the Province, located at the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's, and an independent study on the future direction of health care recommends the Province should have at least two, and possibly three, MRI scanners; and

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation, the Central West Health Care Corporation and the Central East Health Care Corporation, which provide health care services to 202,000 people in 153 communities, recommend the purchase of a mobile MRI scanner that can be shared between Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Winsor, and Gander, and have agreed that an appropriate schedule can be arranged which would provide a high level of diagnostic services to patients in this area; and

WHEREAS diagnostic imagining with an MRI scanner saves lives, reduces the severity and duration of illness, and reduces health care costs through early detection, diagnosis and treatment of major health problems; and

WHEREAS the availability of state-of-the-art diagnostic technology in western and central regions of Newfoundland and Labrador will help in the recruitment and retention of medical specialists in such areas as radiology, neurology, cardiology, and oncology;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador allocate funding to purchase a mobile MRI scanner to provide medically necessary diagnostic services to the 202,000 people who live in western and central Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to move the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS until several years ago, retail employees in this Province were guaranteed by provincial law to have holidays on the Sunday of Mother's Day, the Sunday of Father's Day, the Sunday of the Victoria Day weekend and the Sunday of the Labour Day weekend; and

WHEREAS the government's decision to amend the Shops' Closing Act to permit Sunday shopping had the consequence of removing from retail employees the privilege they had long enjoyed of spending Mother's Day, Father's Day, the Sunday of the Victoria Day weekend and the Sunday of the Labour Day weekend with their families; and

WHEREAS in the years since the inception of Sunday shopping, many retail employees have discovered, to their dismay and to the disappointment of their children, that they are paying a hard price for having to work on important family days, especially days such as Mother's Day and Father's Day that are widely celebrated and intrinsically defined as family days, instead of spending those days with their families; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians still treasure the closeness of their families, still cling to the long-held family traditions that make us who we are, still look forward to family get-togethers to celebrate Mother's Day, Father's Day, the 24^th of May weekend and the Labour Day weekend, and would be only too wiling to sacrifice at least some of their Sunday shopping privileges in order to ensure that our retail employees again have the privilege of enjoying those special occasions each and every year with their families, a privilege that so many others in our Province take for granted;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to amend the Shops' Closing Act to designate the Sunday of Mother's Day, the Sunday of Father's Day, the Sunday of the Victoria Day weekend and the Sunday of the Labour Day weekend as shops' closing holidays.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we could revert back to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees? I have a report that I wanted to present to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we report back to Presenting Reports?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Social 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: Education; Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; Human Resources and Employment; Labour; Health and Community Services; and Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Officers of the House and Hansard for their cooperation, and also to thank and acknowledge the members of the Committee: the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne; the Member for Trinity North; the Member for Burin-Placentia West; the Member for Port de Grave; and the Member for Humber East.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 present a petition from the people of Leading Tickles, in the District of Exploits, and the petition reads:

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.

Mr. Speaker, these are petitions that are beginning to emerge and come into our offices from across the Province. Yesterday, some members in this House went as far as to say, that was only one petition from the district that I represent, the District of Kilbride which incorporates the Goulds, and other parts of the City of St. John's, but that is not the fact. The fact of the matter is that even today this is from the community of Leading Tickles.

People in the Province cannot seem to understand this fundamental question and the government's answer to it. On the one hand, when asked in this Legislature - and I asked this question, and our Leader has asked it on numerous occasions as well - when asked to the former Deputy Premier, the former Member for Bonavista North, Mr. Beaton Tulk: Would government bring that deal, once it is done, to the House of Assembly for fair and open debate in a transparent and accountable way before the deal is final and binding on the people of the Province? He said, emphatically, yes.

The next day, when asked the same question, the Premier of the Province, the Member for Exploits - who was asked directly, because I asked it to him at the time, and our leader has asked it to him - when asked the question again, the very next day, the answer was, emphatically, no.

All this petition is asking for today - and it is from the Premier's district - people all over the Province are asking the same question: Why is it that government will not make that commitment? Why is it that if a deal is signed, or a deal is negotiated between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, which is a subsidiary of Inco, why is it that government is so adverse to bringing the arrangements, the conclusions, the fiscal arrangements, ore that is leaving, the amount of employment that will be created, the amount of revenues that will be generated, any aspects dealing with the federal-provincial relations as it relates to equalization, why is it that government will not table that agreement in this House or on the floor of this House for each and every member of this Chamber and of this Legislature, duly elected members, to have their right exercised by debating such an important matter?

The other question that people ask with respect to the prayer of this petition, in asking the question, why? they also ask another question: If the government does not want to do it, there has to be a reason. They have the majority; they can make it happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

PREMIER GRIMES: No leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier has said, no leave to clue up. None?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will just read the prayer of the petition. It says:

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.

Mr. Speaker, just very recently, I had an opportunity to speak to the Rotary Club in Clarenville, where this was the very focus of our discussion. Pretty well to the person, they agree and concur that in fact, yes, if this is such a wonderful deal, if this is a great deal for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it being debated fully in this House by all members of the Legislature.

The other night, I was driving and I happened to hear the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island on the radio talking about how he was pretty confident that the deal on Voisey's Bay would come back to his caucus, to twenty-eight members in this Legislature, for a full discussion. In fact, he likened it to the caucus discussion on Newfoundland Hydro, several years ago. He was suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there is going to be a debate, there is going to be a full discussion within the twenty-eight districts in this Province. In other words, Mr. Speaker, twenty-eight members of this House will get an opportunity to represent their districts and to have a full discussion on the Voisey's Bay deal when the remaining twenty districts in this Province and the remaining twenty people in this Legislature will not ever get an opportunity for a discussion and a debate on the Voisey's Bay deal before it is signed.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of fairness and in the interest of having a government that says it is open and fully accountable to all of the people. One thing government needs to recognize is that they represent the entire Province and not just the issues and the interests of twenty-eight Liberal districts. That is their full responsibility, to ensure that there is a full disclosure and a full discussion, open to all people in this Province, open to the people who were elected in all forty-eight districts and not just limited to the views of what might be twenty-eight members of this Legislature who are of like minds and who are being directed by the same leader.

Mr. Speaker, we can hardly say that is a full, open disclosure. We can hardly say that reflects an open and fully accountable government when in fact there is going to be a very limited discussion, not in this Legislature but in the privacy of an isolated caucus room, that there will be that discussion within that very select group of people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to present a petition, one of a continuing series of petitions that I have been presenting in the House on behalf of some nineteen residents from the communities of Lark Harbour, Pasadena, Deer Lake and Corner Brook.

The petition, Mr. Speaker, is in the form as prescribed and is a petition requesting and lobbying the provincial government to implement the Nycum Report for a long-term health care facility in Western Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the Western Health Care Corporation has commissioned a study, it has been done and completed by the Nycum Group, and they have recommended that in the Corner Brook area we would construct a new long-term care facility of some 268 beds that would last the needs for the West Coast area up until the year 2016.

The situation as we have it right now in Western Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, is like we have in many parts of the Province, and that is: we have a declining but also an aging population. The facilities that have been built there are insufficient to meet the current need.

As I have said in previous petitions, we have in the Western region some three long-term health care facilities in and around the Corner Brook area. I have previously described the Interfaith Home and the O'Connell Centre.

The third facility, Mr. Speaker, that we have right now in Western Newfoundland is the fifth and sixth floors of the Western Memorial Hospital, facilities that were renovated in 1991 to accommodate long-term health care. At present, Mr. Speaker, there are some sixty-two beds on the fifth and sixth floors. Fifty-two are accommodating Level III patients, thirty-one of whom are protective care - patients who are suffering from dementia of different forms. Also, four Level IIIs and six transitional care.

These are in the Western Regional Hospital, Mr. Speaker, the secondary hospital for the Province for referrals. At this point in time in Western Newfoundland, we are facing a situation where we are using many of our acute care beds for medically discharged patients, patients who would be better accommodated in a long-term health care facility but, because of the shortage within the Corner Brook Western Newfoundland region, these people are taking and using beds; and rightfully so, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, because there is nowhere else that they can go.

There are other policies that could be brought into place, like a first bed available type of basis, but that would mean taking some of our patients, Mr. Speaker, and moving them outside of the Corner Brook area, away from family and friends. There is a desperate need at the moment in the Corner Brook area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MERCER: Just for a second to conclude?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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, petitions are presented to prevent mistakes, and some petitions are presented to fix mistakes. Mr. Speaker, I sat in on the Resource Committee meetings last week and I asked lots of questions through every department in the Resource Committee; but, Mr. Speaker, when I was asking questions on Mines and Energy, the minister answered some of those questions in a way that we were not really happy with. He alluded to it yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when he said that we were jumping from clause to clause and page to page.

I say to the minister and to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the people on that side, that we have a responsibility to ask questions in debate, and that is what we did. If it took six hours, then so be it; because this is an important issue to this Province today. We cannot let things happen in our resources and our mines that happened over the years, Mr. Speaker.

We can look around this Province today and we can see many mistakes, many mistakes over the years that created short-term jobs but long-term pain for a lot of people in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I can give an example of some of those with respect to Gull Pond, Hope Brook, Pilley's Island, Little Bay, Buchans. There are a lot of areas, Mr. Speaker, that can show us what mistakes were made over the years, and it is our responsibility to make sure that these mistakes do not happen again.

I say to the minister, maybe the Premier doesn't know exactly what is going on with respect to a Voisey's Bay deal, but I would say Scott Hand does. Scott Hand, in his remarks to his annual meeting on April 17, alluded to the fact that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, he cannot take away leave. He is out of his own seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to stand and present a 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 full disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important petition put forward, and several of my colleagues have put forward petitions on behalf of many residents of Newfoundland and Labrador made to the same topic. We believe on this side of the House, and we believe that the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians believe, that such an important deal as Voisey's Bay, such an important deal to the future of this Province, such an important deal to the people of this Province should be brought here to the floor of the House of Assembly before it is signed, sealed and delivered with Inco, because the people of the Newfoundland and Labrador deserve to know what is in the deal. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve to know what the details are, what exactly is in the deal for the future, what exactly is in the deal that will compensate the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for a very, very rich resource that we have in Voisey's Bay. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners have put forward these petitions in hope that, at least, in pressing upon the government of the day, in pressing upon Premier Grimes and especially the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Matthews, the importance of bringing this deal to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the promises that were made in the past in relation to Voisey's Bay. We all know the comments by the former Premier Brian Tobin. We know the comments that were put forward by the former Premier Beaton Tulk. We know the promises that they made in relation to dealing with the situation of Voisey's Bay. Therefore, we ask and the petitioners ask that a deal, before it is finalized, before it is signed, sealed and delivered, before the future of the people of this Province is signed, sealed and delivered with Inco, that we get an opportunity to look at the deal, to ask questions on the deal, to critique the deal, to make sure that the promises that were made to the people in Labrador, that the promises that were made to the people in the Argentia area, that the promises that were made to, indeed, all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are kept. The only way we can do that and show that, Mr. Speaker, is do that before the deal is signed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: We have all seen, Mr. Speaker, the past. We have all seen deals that were made in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the members opposite for the opportunity, by leave, to clue up my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important topic to the people I represent. It is a very important topic to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why it is very important that we bring it here to the floor of the House of Assembly. I know that there are members on that side of the House who want this brought here to the House of Assembly. I know that there are members there who want to fully debate it. I know there are members opposite who want to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know exactly what is in this deal before it is signed, sealed and delivered. Before our future is sold down the drain we want to make sure that this is a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have seen deals in the past, Mr. Speaker. We have seen deals on the Lower Churchill. We have seen deals on Marystown. We have seen deals that have been signed; that have been too late once they are signed. We had Friede Goldman - I talked to a gentleman the other day who called it Freebie-Goldman. Well, we do not want a freebie-Inco. I say it is very important that we make sure we get a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that we have a good deal brought here to the floor of the House of Assembly for a full and thorough debate before it is signed, and that is what these petitioners ask.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of Labrador West concerning the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund.

The petition is addressed to the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador assembled and the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up with $347.6 million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act requires that money in the fund be used for the maintenance of marine and ferry services to Labrador, construction of the Trans- Labrador Highway, and other initiatives related to transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Liberal Government announced in the 2002 Budget that $97 million would be taken out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund and added to general revenues of the Province to be used for purposes outside the act.

We the undersigned petitioners believe that the raiding of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund is a gross violation of the purposes of the Fund and a breach of trust with the people of Labrador and hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to direct the government to immediately put this $97 million back into the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund to be spent on transportation initiatives in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was the subject of the question that I asked the minister today in Question Period. Quite frankly, I am sure that the people in Labrador who heard the minister's response are more concerned today after hearing his response than they were prior to my asking the question. Because, all along it was assumed that this government, this year, would put in place the proper amount of money to upgrade the section of road that is deteriorated right now between Ashuanipi Bridge and the Esker turnoff, a road that is a danger to the travelling public and is a disgrace for any tourist to visit this Province that would like to travel over that section of road. It is a total disgrace to the Province that they should have to drive over conditions that you would expect back in the 1930s and 1940s.

When the minister said today, in response to my question, that this money in the fund was not to be used for upgrade of roads, I disagree with the minister. I say that this money in this fund has been used for that purpose traditionally and it can continue to be. But, I can also say to the minister that the people of Labrador, and the entire Province, are fully aware that the $97 million certainly was not intended to reduce the deficit that they have built up over the last number of years.

The people of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned with the inability of this minister and this government to give them any consolation whatsoever that any improvements will be made to transportation on the Trans-Labrador Highway in this coming year. I think that the minister ought to review this in light of what he said today because there is not much point of fixing up thirty-five kilometres of road on a section that is 130 kilometres long and leave - both ends are in the middle - huge sections of (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, to leave sections of that road in the terrible condition that it is and to spend money doing up a section in the middle of that or on either end, does not make sense at all. If you are going to do the job, I say to the minister, do it right and do it proper. Just do not do it piecemeal and leave the conditions that are there now to continue to exist for years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition on Voisey's Bay signed by the residents of St. John's South:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I support this petition, and here are just a couple of the reasons why. We have seen a number of resources in the past that we have made bad deals on. This resource belongs to the people of the Province. This is the people's resource and the people of this Province have every right to know the details of what is in any deal between Inco and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador prior to that deal being signed. We know that most people in the Province are against having any ore or any concentrate shipped out of this Province unprocessed. We know that most people in this Province want the jobs to be created in this Province and we know that most people in this Province do not believe that we are safe in saying that in thirty-five years' time Inco will give us back the ore, and for a number of reasons.

We do not know where that ore will come from in thirty-five years' time. If Inco takes the ovoid, which is the most profitable, most accessible body of ore in Labrador, and that is gone in thirty-five years' time, they can say: It is simply not viable to send ore back to the Province. We do not even know if the hydromet process is going to work, and this government is willing to risk having our resource sent out of the Province with some guarantee that it may come back in thirty-five years' time. It may come back.

We had a guarantee on the Marystown Shipyard. We had a guarantee that if Friede Goldman did not supply the man hours of work required to fulfill that guarantee, they would be fined $5 million a year. Do you know what? That guarantee was never fulfilled. Government did not pursue or push that guarantee. Friede Goldman sold the Marystown Shipyard for millions of dollars, and yet government did not collect the $10 million in penalties that were owed to the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, thirty-five years is an awful long time to gamble with our resources.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We do not know that the hydromet process is going to work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today as well to present a petition on Voisey's Bay. I will read briefly from 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 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, as my colleagues have pointed out, there are lots of people in this Province, numerous people throughout this Province, from one end of the Province to the other, who are concerned that this government will sign a deal with Inco on the development of the Voisey's Bay nickel find. They are concerned that this deal will be signed in the absence of any full and open debate in this Legislature, any full disclosure of what is in that deal to the people of this Province before the deal is signed and final and binding on the people of this Province.

Why, Mr. Speaker, are they so concerned that this is going to happen? Well, you need not look any further than some comments that have come from government and from officials with Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel and compare them to statements that came from the government back in 1999, for example, when the election campaign was on the go.

At that time, the former leader of the Liberal Party, the former Premier of the Province, said that not one ounce, not one spoonful, of unprocessed ore will leave the Province. You compare that today with the government's obvious and stated position today, where two of the outstanding issues are: how many kilotons will be shipped out of the Province, and for how long that shipping will take place, whether it will be two years or five years or whatever. As the Premier has said, and as Scott Hand from Inco has said, and others have said, those are the two main outstanding issues.

Mr. Speaker, this is why the people of the Province are so concerned. This is why we have these petitions here today. This is why we, as members from this side of the House, who sat on the Resource Committee, just over the past couple of weeks, tried to get the government to allow us to bring before our committee, people from Inco, Scott Hand from Inco, and representatives from Voisey's Bay Nickel, so we could question those people on the deliberations that they are having with government on the Voisey's Bay nickel find.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave, to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. TAYLOR: No leave.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the reading of the Orders of the Day be now done.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Orders of the Day be now read.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are we ready for the vote?

All 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; 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; Mr. Mercer, Ms Hodder, Mr. Andersen, Ms Jones, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; 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, 23 ayes and 16 nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 3, Concurrence Motion, the Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, Concurrence Motion, the Resource Committee.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege today to get up and have a few words to say on the Budget Debate, Concurrence, with respect to the Resource Committee. It is very important that we recognize contributions by some people in the Province with respect to our resources, and I would like to say congratulations to the City of Corner Brook for being chosen the Forestry Capital of Canada for 2002. Also, to the Model Forest Committee, Western Newfoundland, for hosting the Canadian Model Forest Network Committees last week. I was fortunate enough to have to spend a couple of days in order to take in some of the Model Forest Committee's functions, and it was indeed a pleasure to see the commitment of our people in this country who are committed to making sure that our forests operate on a sustainable basis.

Mr. Speaker, there were delegates from all across Canada, from B.C. right to Newfoundland and Labrador. In the conference we even had a representative from the International Model Forest Committee from Chile, Mr. Francisco Mendoza Escalas, representing a model forest in Chiloé, Chile. It is a part of Chile that depends on the forest industry and they had some really good comments on the model forest in Chile.

Mr. Speaker, it is not so different in other parts of the world than it is in our part of the world with respect to our resources. We find, throughout the world, that people are concerned over how they develop the resources. They are concerned over resource sustainability, getting the maximum benefits from the resources and making sure that the interests of all the stakeholders are taken into consideration, because without doing that, Mr. Speaker, then we will see a quick fix, short-term gain to make maximum benefits, and in the long-term then the people of whatever area of the country or the world that the resource is being extracted, then that area would be devastated down the road.

That is one of the things that we, in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador particularly, want to make sure that the best benefit, the maximum benefit from the resources are given to the people in the area adjacent to that resource. In this Province I guess we would say our forestry, fishery, mining, any resource that we do have, our wildlife, Mr. Speaker, and our tourism all have to be done in a way that is sustainable and for the best benefit of the people our Province. If we do not do that, then eventually down the road the resource will be gone, the resources will be extracted and whatever, renewable resources will have to be used in a way that is be beyond repairing and using in the future for our future generations. So, we cannot let that happen. We must make sure that the resource that we have is there for the benefit of our people.

With respect to Voisey's Bay; we have an obligation to make sure that whatever deal is on the table, whatever deal is in people's minds has to be brought before the House of Assembly to debate it here, by all people in this House, elected by the people of the Province; to debate that deal to make sure that it is the best deal, and that people know what is in it so that when the final decision is made then the people of this Province would know that it is a deal that is in the best interest of the Province.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, if the minister and the Premier do not know what is going on with respect to negotiations or if there is any deal there, then they should talk to Mr. Hand again because he is certainly making comments which indicate that a deal is close. There is a deal at hand that is going to see ore going out of this Province; feeding the mills in Ontario and Manitoba, to create jobs in those provinces. Mr. Speaker, if you want to go back to the comments that Mr. Hand made at his meeting on April 17, at his annual general meeting, a special meeting that he had there, then you can see that a deal is pretty close. If the Premier denies it and the minister denies it, well I guess they are going to have to do some more reading on what is going on with respect to Inco.

Mr. Hand said in his comments at his annual meeting back on April 17 - I will just quote part of the paragraph there. It says, " To maintain production, we've been bringing in external feeds from Australia and we hope to be shipping Voisey's Bay concentrate to Thompson, and Ontario, as part of an eventual agreement reached with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador." If they are talking about an eventual agreement then they must be sitting down and talking about a deal. And, "The VBN feed will give us additional time to explore and find solutions for Thompson and to plan additional mine development in Ontario."

Mr. Speaker, this ore we have in Labrador, if we do not get the maximum benefit, if we do not do the development and the necessary refining of the nickel that comes out of the ground there, then in a few years this ore body is going to be gone. The minister said: Well, it is in the agreement that this ore will be returned to the Province. In the estimates, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question: Where will the ore come from, and when will it come? I believe the minister alluded to the fact that it could be thirty-five years from now before the ore starts coming back into the Province. Well considering the type of ore base this is and the body of ore that this is, then we will be refining that type of ore. In order to continue refining that type of ore then we have to find the same type of ore somewhere else in the world to bring back here. Right now, Mr. Speaker, there is no identified place that we know of, that I know of, and I asked the minster and he did not know of, and he said he is not too concerned about that because that is in thirty-five years and they have lots of time to look for it. If it is not there now, who is to say it is going to be there in thirty-five years from now?

We have to make sure that every ounce, every spoonful that comes out of the ground in Labrador has to be done for the maximum benefit of the people of this Province. In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, then we must make sure that the maximum processing, refining is done here in this Province. If not, we will see the ovoid, the best part of the ore, being taken out of the ground and shipped to Ontario and Manitoba creating hundreds of jobs up there and people in this Province still having to leave. We cannot do that in this day and age, Mr. Speaker. We must make sure that our people, our skilled people, our young people, are staying in this Province and contributing to our economy, not packing their bags and their U-Hauls and heading on up to the mainland to contribute to the economy of Ontario and Manitoba; because if they do that, then somebody is going to have to turn out the light on the way out, the last person who leaves this Province.

Maybe it might seem farfetched, Mr. Speaker, but when you look at the thousands and thousands of people who have been leaving this Province in the last few years, who's to say it will not escalate and thousands and thousands more will have to leave if we cannot provide meaningful jobs? I do not mean minimum wage jobs; $5.75 an hour jobs. We see a lot of demand lately for low paying jobs. People do not want to take these low paying jobs. A lot of people cannot take these low paying jobs. They are graduates from post-secondary education. They have debt loads. They cannot go out into the workforce working for $5.75, $6.00, $7.00 or $8.00 an hour. Our people who are educated in this Province, who go through a post-secondary and come out with big debt loads, need to get into jobs where they can sustain a good family life and live in the communities that they live in and pay back the debt that they have.

I know, myself, I get a lot of calls from students, particularly lately, who cannot survive in this Province. They cannot work in this Province with the debt load that they have from their education in the past few years. To correct that problem we must offer a lot of good, meaningful, technical jobs to people who are educated to do those jobs. It just does not seem fit, and it does not seem sensible, to see a person with a degree out of university pumping gas. I have a big problem with that. If we cannot have people educated and present something to our youth so they can go to university and come out with some degree of security knowing that their debt will not be that big of a burden where they would have to leave this Province, and even the country, and give them an opportunity to avail of a job where they could live here in this Province; a job where they can have families, have children. That is what is going to be the saviour of this Province.

If our young people could stay in this Province, if they could stay here and have families - because our young families today are the ones who are going to keep this economy going. If we depend on seniors, even though they spend a lot of money too, but for the most part, we need young people to stay in this Province. We need young people having families, then our schools can be viable; our department stores; any type of services that are given in communities, that they could be sustainable; that they could stay in business to provide for the people of this Province.

The basis of keeping this Province alive is keeping our young people here, giving our young people opportunities - whether it be in forestry, agriculture, fisheries, mining, tourism and in the business sector. We are not doing enough in this Province today to encourage our young people to get involved in businesses. Even though they may be small businesses, one and two operations, we have to make sure that the opportunities are there for young people, for young couples to stay here, to come up with good business ideas and have some type of help to get through the red tape. I am not saying that there always has to be money thrown at good business ideas because lots of times if the homework is done, if the work is done and the planning is done, then financing is not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is getting through the red tape; getting people to sit down and listen to them; getting government to help them through the red tape, to make sure that there are professionals in government departments who will sit down with people and help them through their business plans.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only in small businesses, it is even in agriculture today. We have made some substantial moves in agriculture this last year which certainly took a lot of expertise out of the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Today we have the Eastern, the Western, the Central part of the Province not being treated fairly and equally when it comes to respect to our agriculture service department. We have people who would not relocate to the West Coast, with lots of expertise, with lots of experience. Where are they? They are not moving to the West Coast. We have young people coming into that department - I know, are very good young people, but they do not have the experience and the expertise that we had.

We have 70 per cent of the agricultural community here on the Avalon, on the East Coast. We need more support from the department to make sure that the agricultural and agrifoods industry in this Province gets its fair share on the East Coast, and strategically located in the Province. I am not saying that we should have it one place or the other but it has to be done on a fair basis, where the demand is, where the percentage of the industry is located. We have expert people in the field who are being demoted; being asked to come down in scale and rank. People who have been in the industry for so long. That is putting pressure on the agrifoods industry. We need the same type of representation done by our ag reps and management people in agrifoods as what we had over the years. Back in the 1980s, we had ag reps strategically located in Central Newfoundland, Western Newfoundland and Eastern Newfoundland. Today in Central Newfoundland, an ag rep has to come from the West Coast. The expertise that we had twelve years ago, thirteen years ago, that expertise is not readily available to farmers in parts of Newfoundland and Labrador like it should be. We have to recognize that if we are going to have a growing industry in agrifoods, then we have to supply the expertise all over the Province and Labrador. We have to have the necessary facilities maintained and enhanced on the East Coast as well as on the West Coast, and the same opportunities to the Central Newfoundland farmers as anywhere else in the Province.

We need to do something about the land base in this Province. The land base in this Province is a resource. The land base that is there, that has been lying idle for many years in different areas of the Province, particularly on the West Coast, the Codroy Valley, some parts of the East Coast, some parts of Central - we have a lot of land base - a good resource, that is lying idle and we need to put some mechanism and policy in place where anybody who has this land lying idle for many years will be forced to either use it, lease it out, do something with it besides it just lying idle. We are going to see, in the near future, more demand put on availability of land base when we expand our milk quotas. We need extra land to sustain the extra number of animals that are going to be required to give us that quota.

Mr. Speaker, tourism, culture and recreation - that is another area where we are not doing enough. I am not talking about using dollars and coming up with new dollars to do things. We need to have a plan in place where all of our resources work together. All of our resources - our wildlife, our tourism, our pristine wilderness - could be made available to our tourists so that tourists will come here in this Province to spend their money and, by spending money, it creates jobs in rural Newfoundland, it puts money into the pockets of businesses who hire more people. They spend more money in their businesses as their business grows. We must do that.

Before we do that, we have to make sure that the infrastructure is there, the road systems are there, to let tourists not only travel the Trans-Canada Highway from west to east but to get off the Trans-Canada Highway to go down in Green Bay, to go down in Brighton and Miles Cove and Port Anson and Springdale, to get out in the rural areas in this Province, in Pilley's Island and Robert's Arm - what a beautiful trail they have there - and South Brook, and all these areas in my district.

We need the tourists to get off the main roads to get into the small communities in this Province. In order to do that, we have to have a road system that is adequate enough to get down there without having to get a tow truck to follow you with a mechanic in it to do the repairs to get back out of it. That is what I am hearing in rural Newfoundland. People are stopping near the Trans-Canada and saying: We cannot go down there because the roads are too bad.

We need something done with our provincial road system. I know it has to be a joint venture between the Province and the federal government. We have to have a large roads program, a provincial roads program. We cannot do it with $16 million, Mr. Speaker. Sixteen million dollars will not even fill the potholes in this Province. We need a very large new federal-provincial roads program so that we can pave the roads, pave Route 380 and 390 and in other members' districts. We need a large program with hundreds of millions of dollars, most of which will come from Ottawa, and we need a good member to send up there. I am proud to say today that the District of Gander-Grand Falls has elected a good young man who is going to go to Ottawa and present the case of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Rex Barnes will go up to Ottawa and make sure that the people in his riding - my district is part of his riding - are going to be well represented by Mr. Barnes, and the needs of the people with respect to roads, infrastructure, and all that, Mr. Speaker. I say to the members on the other side, too, that we need people who are going to go to Ottawa and fight for the needs of this Province; to go there and say we need $600 million for our roads. We need hundreds of millions of dollars for an infrastructure. We need some type of relief for our small communities in rural Newfoundland who do not have the tax base to put in water and sewer, who do not have the tax base to have taxes to pave the roads in the community. They cannot even grade the roads in the communities, Mr. Speaker. With the amount of gravel roads in this Province, and the amount of old paved roads, twenty-five, thirty-year-old roads, the people in the small communities of this Province cannot afford to do that.

We want to make the best of our tourism industry, make the best of any other type of resource industry, make sure the environment is respected and taken care of, make sure that our industry, trade and rural development projects and policies apply to everybody in the Province, make sure that the services, whether it be aquaculture, forestry or whatever, are available equally to everybody in this Province. Because I can tell you now, Mr. Speaker, services by government are not equally distributed. We have, in forestry, conservation officers being bogged down with paperwork keeping them in their offices, cannot get out to do surveillance and patrols, and there is a big part of this Province that is not being protected. A big part of this Province is going by the wayside. There is work that is not being done. The stats are not being compiled. Our wildlife stats are not being compiled. Scientific research is not being done. All of this leads to destruction in the end. If we do not have the necessary research and the necessary information, then down the road there is going to be an end to our resources. There is going to be an end to our wildlife resources.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: Can I have a couple of minutes to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: I will get another opportunity, Mr. Speaker, but there is one comment I would like to make and it was what the Minister of Fisheries said yesterday about down in his district. Well, I can say equally to what he said: My district back in the early days of liberalism, we had no roads in Green Bay, and it was a Liberal government at the time.

When the PC government came in, they built roads all throughout Green Bay. They paved the roads. Since this Liberal government came in, our roads have deteriorated to a point that I do not know but they are beyond repair. They must be replaced. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, in his own district, I remember when I was a young fellow and I visited his district many times. In the 1970s, the PC government did build a lot of roads in his district. The PC government had a plan in place, back in the 1970s and early 1980s, where many roads in Fogo and Twillingate were being developed and planned. Unfortunately, they never had time to build the roads and pave them at the same time.

He may be correct in saying they were not all paved in PC times. I would say he was probably correct in that, but that was a plan that the PC government of the day had, to have those roads built and paved.

I do know for sure that there were a lot of roads built in his district in the 1970s. I don't know how long he lived in that district. I don't even know if he is from that district, but I remember when I was a teenager, seventeen or eighteen years old, going down in his district. There was a lot of construction on the go, I can tell him, by the former company, J. Goodyear & Sons Ltd., which I was very closely involved and associated with. They built many roads in Fogo and Twillingate.

The Minister of Fisheries may not be totally correct, he may not be totally wrong, but the PC government spent a lot of money in his district on roads in the 1970s and 1980s, and they certainly spent a lot of money in my district in the 1970s and 1980s, in the Green Bay district. I hope that, when the time comes, we can find a way to get all our roads kept up to standard, rebuilt, because it is crucial, it is important, to every district. For the forty-eight districts in this Province, it is important that we make sure that our roads are in a fit state so that we can capitalize on our tourism, on our forest resources, on our fishery resources. We must make sure that we have that infrastructure in place.

Roads are a very important part of the survival of this Province. Without roads, we are not going to make it. If we do not have good roads to get the best out of our resources, to get the best out of tourism, then I am afraid that this Province is not going to make it, because money is not getting filtered out to the small communities. It is not getting out to the small towns, from tourism, because tourists are afraid to go. They know that, if they go on these secondary roads, the provincial roads, they are going to need a mechanic and a tow truck to get them back out of it.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of having just a few words to say. I will give my colleagues a chance to have a few words to say on the Resource Committee debate on concurrence. I will pass it on to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker.

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 want to have a few words to say with respect to the Resource Committee Estimates that we are currently debating in the House, and to probably clarify a few things and add my perspective as to where we are in the stream of time.

As everybody in the Province knows, Mr. Speaker, this Province is a resource-base economy. Whether it is our natural resources in terms of renewable resources such as fisheries, or whether we talk about our non-renewable resources such as oil and gas or minerals in the ground, this is in fact a resource-base economy in this Province. I think if there is anything that we can all agree on, if there is any message that I have heard in the last almost ten years now since I have been involved with public life, if there is any message that I have heard from the people of the Province, it is that we fundamentally have to make one of two choices: We have to decide that in fact we are going to attempt to develop our resources, both renewable and non-renewable resources, in the best possible fashion to advance our economy; or, Mr. Speaker, we can take the other view and that is that we are going to do virtually nothing with respect to our resources and allow ourselves to become in perpetuity clients of the federal system and hope to survive on that basis and let what will evolve naturally in the economy happen, but, for goodness sake, not risk and not take any chances to try and develop hard, tough projects.

Mr. Speaker, these are the two choices we have. We have a choice of virtually doing nothing and letting things slide, or we have the choice of taking, as it were, our economic bull by the horns and decide that we are going to try to develop this economy in this Province for the betterment of all who live here now and for the betterment of those who are away and who might want to come back and reside in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the message I have heard from the people of the Province is this message: By all means, on any reasonable basis that you can find, try and develop the economy of the Province using our natural resources, using our renewable resources, and using our non-renewable resources.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. Member for Waterford Valley that when he speaks I listen to him attentively and I would appreciate the same courtesy from him, with great respect. He is generally a good listener, Mr. Speaker, but there are times when he gets a little excited. I understand why he would excited. At his age, blood pressure tends to run a little higher. I know because I am there, within a number of days. Within a very few days we probably are about the same age. We arrived in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, on the same day. I don't know how long he intends to stay around, but I would suspect that there is a good chance that he will be long into retirement before this member decides to follow his example.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: He continues to ask me what I am doing in my political future. I say to the hon. Member for Waterford Valley: Wait and see. Just watch, because, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to digress into politics, per se, I want to speak substantively to the issues, I would say this. Responding to what GDP might mean, as the hon. the Member for Kilbride was talking about this afternoon, it could mean a lot of things: good day politically.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. Member for Baie Verte, if we look at the results of the people who cast their vote in the by-elections in two districts last night, yes, I would say it probably is, for people on this side, a good day politically; because the figures I saw as a result of the votes cast last night, for the first time ever in the Province, as I recall, and as the analysis seems to indicate, a full 63 per cent of the people who voted last night in two by-elections voted Liberal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member: good day politically. I would say to the hon. member there is BDP coming, there is a better day politically coming for those of us who are on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: We do not underestimate, Mr. Speaker, the challenge of improving upon a 63 per cent performance in the Province last night, but we do believe, in fact, there is still the possibility that we can improve upon that 63 per cent of Liberal vote that came out to support Liberal candidates last night.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for digressing into that area, but the hon. Member for Baie Verte egged me on. I know he wanted me to share that bit of information for the benefit of the people of the Province so that some real, positive, practical and truthful perspective could be put upon what actually happened in terms of votes cast last night.

The people of this Province do want us to move forward and develop the resources of this Province. If, on the other side of this, there is any one thing that I have observed by listening to the people who sit on the other side of the House - and I believe all of the people who sit in this House, I say it rhetorically, everybody, I believe, in this House, who comes here, all forty-seven or forty-eight seats when they are filled, are filled by people who want to do good by the people of the Province to advance our economy and make a better circumstance for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the resource development that we currently have under negotiation with the possibility of getting the Voisey's Bay project going, if there is any one thing that I notice on that side of the House, when the people over there start to talk about it, whether it is innocently, whether it is in ignorance, or whether it is out of sheer political fear, the thing that petrifies them most, as I have observed, is the fact that they believe we might, in fact, be able to do a good deal on behalf of the people of the Province, and advance the economy, and that they have marked out for themselves a position which puts them clearly not with the majority of the people of the Province. I believe that to be the case. I hope, if we can be successful in concluding our negotiations with Voisey's and get the project going, that will be something that will be demonstrated as a result of a discussion.

The people of this Province need to know a couple of things. The people of this Province need to know that never has there been a contemplation, and never will there be a consideration, of raw ore leaving this Province for processing elsewhere. The people of this Province need to know that what we are potentially talking about is the possibility of, for a short period of time, some concentrate leaving the Province.

Mr. Speaker, what is concentrate? What is the difference between raw ore and concentrate? I am not a metallurgist and I am not a geologist, but in layman terms let me explain what it is. The difference is this: Whereas ore comes out of the ground, is scooped up, and includes rock and a variety of other minerals that might be mixed in, including contaminates, once that comes out of the ground, the next process is to put it through what we call a concentrator, a mill first and then a concentrator at the site.

The people of the Province need to know that before we can make concentrate in this Province there has to be an investment of between $400 million and $600 million by the people who will be the developers of this resource and this ore body. So what we are saying, Mr. Speaker? We are saying that concentrate is a partly processed ore that will be at minimum the only thing - if in fact there is ever anything - that will ever move for a short period of time out of this Province.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Member for Baie Verte, if he would allow me the courtesy of speaking uninterrupted in the House. I have something to say that I think is important to the people of the Province.

I am saying this: that there will never be raw ore leaving the Province. The minimum that will be leaving, if anything at all, will be a concentrated product that has gone through the mining process, that has gone through the milling process, and that has gone through a concentrator at the Voisey's Bay site. How will that happen? That will happen, if it does happen, after there has been an expenditure of between $400 million and $600 million in capital outlay by whoever develops that site and the current owner. The current owner, obviously, is Inco, and that is whom we are negotiating with.

I think the people on the other side are innocently afraid that we are going to do a deal that will be acceptable to the people of the Province, so that we can advance the economy of this Province so that we can move forward.

Let me get to the piece that has to do with research and development. It is historic, Mr. Speaker, that there has been taken, by a political party in this Province, maybe for the first time in history ever, a position against encouraging the federal government to invest in R and D projects in this Province so as to try and advance our economy.

MS JONES: Not true!

MR. MATTHEWS: I believe it is true, I say to the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I believe it is true that people on the other side of the House have blindly, have innocently, have fortuitously, have on a political basis - maybe only, when it all comes down to it - taken a position that R and D should not be encouraged to come to this Province so as to try and prove up a new technology which, in the first instance, will involve the hydromet process.

What the people of the Province need to know is that we are not interested solely, in having R and D money come to this Province if in fact the federal government are of a mind to help Inco with this. We are not saying they have to. We are saying: Do for Inco what you would do for any other company in like circumstance that would come to you looking for research and development money to advance projects anywhere. In our interest we say: If you can do it in Newfoundland, so much the better for our economy.

What we are looking at is not only R and D money to test up a process to develop hydromet so that it can be used against the sulfide ore bodies in Labrador, what we are doing is, by extension, asking the federal government if they would be good enough to help Inco - if they feel it is the right thing to do - to help develop a whole new research and development initiative in this Province, which in the first instance will start with the hydromet technology but will be available to test up other types of processing long into the future after that is completed with respect to the hydromet versus the sulfite ores that will be coming out of Voisey's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province I believe need to understand, and it is our responsibility as government to share with them the information and knowledge we have. It is important for them to know that R & D for hydromet testing technology in Argentia is but the first of what we believe will be many, many other R & D related projects to be carried on in this Province for the next ten, twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years, if in fact the project should successfully get up and running. What I am saying -

MR. HUNTER: What if it is not?

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there you go again. The hon. the Member from Windsor-Springdale said: But what if it is not? He is frightened to death. He reminds me of the individual that the former, former, former premier used to talk about. He reminds me of somebody that continuously loves to take the position of wrapping himself in tinfoil and calling for lightening to come because he is frightened to death that something good is going to happen in the Province. I say to the hon. member, ask me the question: What if it is successful? Not what if it is not successful. What if it is successful? Well, let me tell him what will happen if it is successful. It will mean -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why can't you bring ore (inaudible)?

MR. MATTHEWS: Voisey's Bay ore only exists in Voisey's Bay, as best I understand. The hon. member asks rather revealing questions, might I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the ore coming back from?

MR. MATTHEWS: He asked the question: Where is the ore coming back from? Inco, today, Mr. Speaker - first of all, the industry generally, on a worldwide basis, is continuously moving various types of ore products, metal products, nickel products. They are moving it all over the world. Mr. Speaker, he asks: Where is it coming from? I say to the hon. member, why doesn't he place a call to the people somewhere, find a phone number of someone in Clydach, Wales who had a mine in their jurisdiction -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not bring it to the House for debate and then you will find (inaudible)?

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, now he asks another question. He will not let me tell him where the ore might come from. When I started to answer that question he wants to know: Why don't we bring it to the House and debate it? One question at a time, I say to the hon. member. This is the member, I say to the people in the Province, who after three-plus hours of questioning me in Estimate hearings about ten days ago, he did not have time to finish up. He said we have to go into overtime. We will come back on Tuesday morning and we will have more questions about this issue. We said: Fine. The Chair, the hon. Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, said: Fine, we will extend the hearings. So we came back at 9 o'clock on another morning. Well, who do you think was not here to ask the questions that he did not have time to ask the day we concluded the first set of hearings? The hon. the member over here was not here when you ask the questions that he wanted more time to ask.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Minister of Mines and Energy, I was listening intently to his speech and fair enough, he defended his right to stand up and speak. But, in having sole possession of the camera, he is trying to leave an impression that the Member for Windsor-Springdale was not attending to his duties by not showing up to a committee hearing; nothing further could be from the truth. The fact of the matter is that the meeting he referred to, the Member for Windsor-Springdale was doing his duty out in his district at a prior commitment. At that committee hearing what he did do was ensure that this member, the Member for Kilbride, represented him at that committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, more importantly than that, it is a long standing rule in the House, all members know it, that it is a common practice, it is listed within the rules that we guide ourselves by, we do not refer to members who are absent for purely legitimate, bonafide reasons. The minister has done that. I am sure that he in no way, shape or form wanted to leave an impression that the Member for Windsor-Springdale was not doing his duty. I ask him, when he gets to his feet, to indicate exactly that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not recall making any commentary that would suggest that the hon. member was doing anything on the morning that we had the second series of hearings that was inappropriate. I simply say that we were happy - and the hon. Member for Kilbride is right, I would not refer to a member that is not in the House. If the rule with respect to that has been breached, I certainly apologize to the hon. member.

The fact of the matter is, the hon. member is here in the House today and that is why I carry on. I am only answering, Mr. Speaker, the questions that he raised because, as I said, while he wanted more time to ask questions in committee, on the second day he was here to do so. I point that out. Today he is asking me all kinds of questions across the House. While I am trying to deliver a speech to inform the people of the Province a little bit about this project, he continues to interrupt me.

Now let me carry on by trying to answer one of the questions that he raised. He said: Where is the ore going to come from in thirty-five years? He asked the question: Where is the appropriate type of ore going to come from in thirty-five years? It is a legitimate question. I do not debate the fact that it is a legitimate question, but I say to the hon. member, first of all, he suggests in some way that - and I don't think he intends to do this - we are probably dealing with a company, Inco by name, that is less than credible. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we have to deal with people who have rights to ore bodies in this Province by virtue of them coming and exploring or buying rights to that which has been explored to develop it. We have an obligation to talk to whomever has the rights to the ore. In this case it is Inco. We are talking to a company that is 100 years old this year, is celebrating its 100^th birthday. We are talking to a company that is the largest producer of nickel in the world and is the leader in the production of nickel on a worldwide basis.

I say to the hon. member with great respect, if they still believe we are talking to, or if they in fact believe that we are talking to and dealing with a company that has no credibility then they will have to answer to that. I am satisfied to suggest and tell the people of the Province that we are dealing with, in our judgement, a very credible, a very prominent worldwide player in the nickel industry. We hope successfully to conclude a deal with them to develop Voisey's Bay, if that is in fact possible. We will know sooner rather than later on that account.

I say to him, why doesn't he find the phone number of at least one person in Clydach, Wales, where once upon a time there was a nickel mine, Mr. Speaker. The nickel mine ran out. The day a mine opens up, obviously, it is a day closer to extinction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: If I could conclude, I would appreciate it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: The nickel mine ran out thirty or forty years ago. The people in Clydach, Wales, today have, for thirty or forty years, had the good fortune of having the good common sense to allow a development of their mine to happen many years ago so that a processing facility could be built and so that, when the ore body ran out in Clydach Wales, for the next thirty or forty years they have seen, and continue to see today, the importation of feed so that plant can continue to run.

Mr. Speaker, I say in conclusion that we are talking about a concept no less different than the one that exists in Clydach, Wales. That is one example. I would also say to the member from the other side who asked that question, maybe he should talk to the people in Fort Saskatchewan in Saskatchewan, who today see a processing plant running in their Province day after day after day. Where do they get the feed for it, Mr. Speaker? It does not come from Saskatchewan, it does not come from Manitoba, it does not come from Sudbury, it does not come from any place in Canada. It comes from Cuba, Mr. Speaker. It comes from Cuba. So, for the hon. member to suggest that it is an extraordinary contemplation, for the hon. member to suggest that it is an extraordinary thing, to consider feed as being available in the future to come to a proposed processing facility in Newfoundland, I say to the hon. member it is the norm in the worldwide industry to see feed move around the world to be processed in one area while mined and concentrated and milled in another area.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the people of the Province, in conclusion, that there is not a chance ever that this government, on behalf of the people of the Province, would contemplate signing a deal for the development of Voisey's Bay unless we first have in place the absolute best guarantees and assurances that can be prescribed so as that in the event there is any difficulty in the distant future of concentrate not coming back, that we will be adequately and appropriately protected against any loss in terms of the economic value to the people of this Province. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the economic value of the short period of concentrate export will be taken care of in an appropriate type of guarantee. I would say to the people on the other side of the House and to the people of the Province, in conclusion - and I will conclude on this note - that notwithstanding the position that the Opposition has taken on this project, notwithstanding the ad campaign that they are running against a project that has not yet been agreed to, that has not yet been fully negotiated, notwithstanding that, I would ask them to consider, in the interest and in the context of the greater good of the people of this Province, to allow the discussion to go forward in a non- politicized fashion so that people can objectively know what will happen if in fact a deal is done, so that people can make a judgement based on its merit.

The people on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and the people on this side of the House, the people on both sides of the House, have a greater obligation in a project as enormous and as important to the people of the Province as the Voisey's Bay project. They have a greater obligation than to play or to seek to play or to seek to achieve a political advantage from the discussion regarding the project. I say to people on both sides of the House: Let us see if we can get the deal done. Let us see if we can conclude what is, in our judgement, a good deal for the people of the Province, and then, if we can get that done, we will be happy to bring it forward to the people of the Province, hold it up to the light of day so that it will be transparent and it will be clear what it is we are contemplating to do on their behalf and they will be the judges of whether or not it is the right deal at the right time on the right project, done for the right purposes and having the right potential outcomes for the people of the Province.

We want a non-politicized debate not because we are afraid of debating things politically. We do that for a living on both sides of the House, but we would like to have a non-political debate in the context of ensuring that the people of the Province have the accurate, and have the unbiased and have the unimpeded ability to look at the project, if we get it done, look at the agreement when we get it done, if we do, on a basis that they can make a good judgement on whether or not it is the right thing for them. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if and when we get the deal done, the people of the Province will be pleased to see it, they will be pleased to examine it, they will be pleased to pass their judgement on it, and I have every confidence that the judgement that they pass, that the verdict that they will yield, will be one of: Aye, go ahead, get it done. Let's move our Province forward. Let's grow this economy. Let's have faith in ourselves. Let's have faith in those who come to work with us as economic players, and let's have faith in a forward-looking Province in which we can take pride and in which we can encourage others to come and participate in the economy with us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's leave has been withdrawn.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have listened for the last twenty minutes to half-hour to the Minister of Mines and Energy, and certainly parts of his elaboration were not easy to listen to, but I listened with intent. I listened with interest, Mr. Speaker, because the Voisey' Bay development, as most of you know, is a very important topic in the district that I represent and certainly in the area of Placentia and the Argentia area. Any time the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is the leading spokesperson on the file for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is on his feet, I listen intently because I am always interested in what is happening with the deal. I am always interested in what is going to come out in relation to what the people in my area will be able to benefit from, and I certainly listened with intent today.

I want to tell the Minister of Mines and Energy - and not only the Minister of Mines and Energy; I want to tell the government - Mr. Speaker, that here is one Member of the House of Assembly, here is one individual in Newfoundland and Labrador, who is not frightened of a deal. I am not frightened of a deal. Indeed, I am waiting for the deal. I am excited about the possibility of a deal but, at the same time, what I am frightened of, if there is a reason to be frightened, is the fact that the deal is being done behind closed doors. I understand that we are dealing with a multinational company, and I understand that certain negotiations and discussions have to go on behind closed doors. Mr. Speaker, I have always taken the three-pronged approach to the development of Voisey's Bay. My three-pronged approach, Mr. Speaker, dates back to 1996-1997, when the first of these discussions were taking place.

My approach was: Number one, that we ask Inco and the government to get to the table and sit down and discuss a deal, Mr. Speaker. That was number one. Number two was, that the government and Inco would come up with a deal that they both could agree to. Whatever that deal was, that they would come up with a deal that they both could agree to, and be prepared to sign off on. Number three was, that they take it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador before they signed it and there was nothing else we could do about it, that in some way, shape or form, that they would take it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador so the people, the people who own that resource, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would have the opportunity to see the deal, to ask questions about the deal, and to have an opportunity to voice their concerns or their support for the deal.

What I am asking here today, Mr. Speaker, when I look back to May 18, 1999 - in a few days' time, almost three years ago - the present Premier of this Province, Roger Grimes, who was then the Minister of Mines and Energy, stated in this House - Minister Grimes at the time, stated in this House - on May 18, 1999: We are going to do what is right for Newfoundland and Labrador at the appropriate time. It will be fully debated and discussed, I am sure, in this Legislature and outside in the Province when the group comes forward with a proposition. Mr. Speaker, these are the words of the former Minister of Mines and Energy, the present Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who told us here in this House that this deal would be discussed on the floor of this Legislature as soon as both groups come forward with a proposition, Mr. Speaker.

That is all we have been asking here in the House. That is all the people of the Province have been asking, Mr. Speaker. We are not asking to be sitting at the table when negotiations are going on. We are not asking to be sitting in on detailed negotiations with a company that, as the minister has relayed, has been around for 100 years. That is not what we are asking. What we are asking is: Before a deal is signed, before that deal is signed forever and a day, that we get an opportunity here in this House, as elected legislators, as elected representatives of the people of this Province, that we get an opportunity in this House to ask questions and to have a look at that deal and to make sure - maybe somebody should have asked questions on Churchill Falls. Maybe some people should have asked questions on the Marystown deal. Maybe some people should have asked some questions on our oil development, our oil and gas development. Maybe if we had to have the opportunity to ask the questions on these major resources here in this Province, we would not be in the mess that we are in today, economically, in this Province, Mr. Speaker. That is why we think there is an opportunity here now to lay the deal on the Table of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, to let everybody in the Province know what is going on.

I have listened to the Premier. I have listened to the Premier over the past couple of weeks, and I have listened to the Minister of Mines and Energy, saying that they are going to take it to the people of the Province, that the people of the Province will be fully informed of the deal. That concerns me, because it does not say we will be fully informed of the deal before it is signed. That is why, Mr. Speaker, when you see the minister standing up in his place today saying that raw ore will not leave this Province, that is welcome news to a lot of people's ear. He talks about concentrate leaving the Province for a certain period of time and coming back at a later period of time. I say to the minister, if that is part of the deal, why not tell us? Is it going to come back in 2006? Is it going to come back in 2011, as we are hearing? The earliest possible date that it may come back is 2011? From that, it will take thirty-five years for the ore that is taken out to come back. Are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador willing to accept that? Are the people of Labrador willing to accept that? Are the people of Placentia area willing to accept that? These are the concerns that we raise here in the House? These are the concerns that the minister has put forward and the questions that we want to ask.

The minister also said in his statement today that we can do two things: we can attempt to produce our natural resources, which hopefully we all want to do, or we can do nothing and just let them slide by the way. That is what the minister said. They are the two options. Well, I say we have two options in regard to the Voisey's Bay deal. We can do two things as legislators. The government has a choice of two things to do. They can sign that deal behind closed doors. They can take it out to the people of the Province after it is signed and it is fait accompli. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Or, as a second choice, and I think the choice of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, they can take it here to the House of Assembly.

We have witnessed in the past couple of days here in the House a couple of standing votes, when members stood here and caused Division to be held. Both votes that were held were won by the government party. It is way it is. We have a situation here where the majority of people here in the House sit on that side of the House. Therefore, basically any vote that will come here, bar none, certainly a vote of such importance as the Voisey's Bay development - any vote that would come here to the floor of the House of Assembly would have to be debated and would have to be voted on. Therefore, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, in all sincerity, you have two choices about what to do with natural resources in this Province; that is you can develop them or you can put them to the side. You have two choices with what you can do with the Voisey's Bay deal. You can sign it behind closed doors or you can take it here to the House of Assembly where you have the majority of people here in the House and to vote on that (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, in all sincerity, if you believe in your heart that you had or is going to have the best deal possible for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and you believe that after five, six, seven years of negotiations, that you have the best deal possible for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that if you have turned over every sheet of paper that has been on the table from Inco, and you have discussed and debated it and the people in your department have done that, and you believe that you have the best deal possible: Why do you not agree to take it to the House of Assembly for a debate? Why do you not agree to take it where you have the majority of people here in the House, where if a standing vote was held here in the House today, as we witnessed a couple of hours ago, that vote would be in the favour of government? Why are you denying the people here on this side of the House and denying people on the other side of the House, the opportunity to see that deal before it is signed? That is a very, very important question, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, a very, very important question. I say it is a question that is on a lot of people's minds outside this Legislature, certainly in light of the comments that were put forward over the past couple of days and couple of weeks by people like Scott Hand.

I will just refer, if I could, to my notes for a moment and just go to what Scott Hand said on April 17; remarks that were made by Scott Hand, Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at the annual and special meeting of shareholders in Toronto of Inco. Mr. Speaker, some comments that he made certainly caused some concern in this Province. I am sure that the minister heard those remarks and heard them repeated by people here in the House, and indeed, by people in the Province. We, on this side of the House, are very concerned with the possibility of a tremendous amount of ore leaving this Province, or concentrate. The minister can put whatever name he wants on it, but the fact is it is product from our natural resource in Labrador that is going to travel to Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba, and people in this Province are very concerned about what that is going to entail.

I would just like to say, if I could, the third element is the federal government's participation. For example, we are talking about research and development: Assistance to perfect the hydrometallurgical technology we are proposing for Voisey's Bay. We are continuing our discussions with officials in Ottawa and we remain hopeful that they will participate in programs like Technology Partnerships Canada. A few days later, a person by the name of Alan Stubbs, an Inco spokesperson said - and this is a very important factor because the research and development situation has come up here time and time again in the House. What we are saying and what we have said in the past is let us see the deal first. Alan Stubbs, a representative of Inco said: Inco's request for federal money to support research and development is pending but company spokesman, Alan Stubbs, said the application will not get consideration until a deal is reached for Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for debate on the Concurrence Motion has now expired.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, there are several issues here in relation to this deal and I certainly hope that the minister is listening, as I am sure he is, and that he is listening to the people in the Province in saying that we all want a deal in Voisey's Bay. We want this deal settled. We had a discovery back in 1996. We are climbing now on six years. We all want a deal on Voisey's Bay. We all want what is best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe the minister, in his opening remarks, said that he thinks that everybody in this House wants the best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I am no different on this side of the House, and we are no different on this side of the House. I am sure the forty-seven of us who are here now, and the forty-eight when the by-election is held, will come into this House of Assembly and hope to do the best we can for the people we represent and certainly want the best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come and the time has gone when things are done behind closed doors, therefore it is imperative on this government to heed the comments that are being put forward by the people of the Province and say: Look, if you believe that you have the best deal possible for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on Voisey's Bay, if you believe that it is a deal that will take us into a brighter future, then lay the deal on the Table of the House of Assembly. Lay it out here so the people who are elected here in the House of Assembly can debate this issue and ensure that if there is a question on the Voisey's Bay deal that it will come forward here in the House and we will get the best deal possible for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we will get the best deal possible for the people in Placentia & St. Mary's. That is why we keep saying here, and we will keep on saying that the bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, take the deal to the House of Assembly for debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Debate has now expired on the Resource Committee report. Is it the concurrence of the House that the report of the Resource Committee be accepted as presented?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In the Chair's opinion the ‘ayes' have it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All 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; 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. Anderson; Ms Jones; Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; 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, there are twenty-two ‘yeas' and sixteen ‘nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion passes.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: While I am standing, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House not rise at 10:00 p.m.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: We will be doing concurrence motion, Government Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The concurrence motion on the Government Services Committee.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me this afternoon to open debate on the Estimates Committee for the Government Services Committee. During Committee we had the opportunity to review the Estimates for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, the Department of Environment, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, the Department of Finance and the Public Service Commission, and Government Services and Lands. I must say that the debates were very informative. Questions were raised on all issue relating to the estimates of each department, and I am proud to report that the Committee passed, unanimously, without change, without amendment, the Estimates.

During the debate, questions were raised to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs regarding the various components of his department, of his program for this year, and I think he answered all questions very capably.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: The minister enlightened us about the capital works program for this year and it seemed like the satisfaction of all the members of committee was given to the minister to proceed with his plans.

We reviewed the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and again various questions were asked regarding the department. One of the main concerns we had, and the minister addressed very capably, was the rapid progression of work that was taking place regarding the Provincial Home Repair Program. The minister enlightened us that we were getting caught up to some of where we were, we are probably finishing off this year, minister, if I recall, the applications that were made in 1998 and getting into 1999, which was a great change from previous years where there was no catch-up at all. The amount of repairs that had to be done, that were needed for the general public, were just getting out of hand.

As we reviewed the Department of Environment, the Opposition critic grilled the minister very strenuously on his department, and the minister readily responded with all the answers to the questions, regarding the oil tanks and so on.

Madam Speaker, it is getting a bit noisy here. I am having a job to hear myself.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask you to keep the noise down just a little bit, please.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I understand the hon. member's enthusiasm on the other side for the-

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to be filled in on the news. He doesn't know who won last night.

MR. SWEENEY: He does not know who won. Well, I have to say that the popular vote last night in the Province, was over 63 per cent for the Liberal party; 63 per cent of the popular vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: I want to report that my good friend, the former Minister of Fisheries, the former Member for Port de Grave, had an astounding victory- an astounding victory! - where he received over 75 per cent of the vote. Bonavista North: If I recall we won that. The popular vote there about 4 to 1, in Bonavista North. As I received the breakout, the breakout was about 4 to 1. On one side of the district, I think it was about 10 to1odds, 10 to1 ratio, on one side, in eleven to thirteen communities. I do not have the statistics here in front of me, but if the Member for Torngat Mountains would pass them along to me, if he would be kind enough.

I would like to talk about Lumsden, one poll in Lumsden: Mr. Efford, 96; to the Tory candidates, 9. In poll number two in Lumsden, I am happy to report for Mr. Efford that he received 100 votes, and I am sad to report for the PC candidate, 0. When we get down to Cape Freels: Mr. Efford, 53; Ms Brazil for the PC party, 1. As we go down to Wesleyville and Pound Cove, 55 votes for Mr. Efford; 1 for the PC candidate. In Newtown and Templeman, 85 to 5. Wesleyville - now this is a real shocker - Mr. Efford, 77 votes; and for the PC candidate, 10. As a matter of fact, this was the chosen candidate, the one who had the best chance. In Brookfield, Wesleyville, Mr. Efford had 89; Ms Brazil, 4. In Valleyfield, again, 69 for Mr. Efford; 0 for the PC candidate. In Badger's Quay, where our good friend has the Open Line program, Mr. Art Wicks phones in, 84 for Mr. Efford and 12 for Ms Brazil. Badger's Quay-Valleyfield-Pool's Island: 107 for Mr. Efford; 13 for Ms Brazil.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. SWEENEY: I haven't gotten down to it yet, I say to the minister. I haven't gotten down to where she has won one, but I am working on it. I will keep reading to see if she can win one.

Mr. Efford, 68 in Pool's Island to 1 for Ms Brazil. In Greenspond, I say to the Minister of Justice as he steps aside there, 74 for Mr. Efford and 11 for Ms Brazil; in answer to a discussion we had this morning. In Centreville, Indian Bay, 48 for Mr. Efford, 5 for Ms Brazil. We go down to Wareham, 80 for Mr. Efford, 19 for Ms Brazil.

Now, it gets a little bit closer right here in Centreville: 51 for Mr. Efford, 24 for Ms Brazil. Trinity, Bonavista Bay, Mr. Efford with 62, and 13 for Ms Brazil. Then we come down to Dover: 58 for Mr. Efford and 5 for Ms Brazil.

MR. NOEL: What is Bonavista South?

MR. SWEENEY: Bonavista South - wait now, Minister, be patient. Let's not rush through this. This is very valuable information here. I am glad the Opposition members raised this point.

In Hare Bay - now, there were four polls in Hare Bay - 81 for Mr. Efford to 12; 41 for Mr. Efford to 13; 69 to 6; and 58 to 7. Then we get to Dover: 62 to 7.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the hon. member, that I am doing Bonavista-Trinity-Conception first and if the evening permits, and I have time enough, I will certainly go through the other ones.

MR. SULLIVAN: So, this is the concurrence debate on Government Services, is it?

MR. SWEENEY: I just want to show the hon. member how satisfied the people of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception are with the performance of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: The level of satisfaction for this government in Middle Brook was 58 to 20 for Mr. Efford and our government. In Dark Cove, 48 to 21; and 93 to 36 in Middle Brook.

MR. ANDERSEN: How about Trinity North?.

MR. SWEENEY: Trinity North: We will get there, I say to the Member for Torngat.

The percentage of the Liberal vote, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, as I said earlier, is roughly 63 per cent; 63.4 per cent of the popular vote went to the Liberals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: It seems rather high. It does seem rather high for a by-election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: A rough figure, 63.4 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I don't have my calculator here with me, so I have to say a rough figure of 63.4 per cent.

The level of satisfaction expressed yesterday in the by-election for the Liberals in Gambo was 50 for Mr. Efford, representing the Liberal Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, no, these are dead-on numbers. Sixteen for Ms Brazil. In Dark Cove, 62 to 10 for Mr. Efford. Thirty-five for Mr. Efford in the second poll in Dark Cove. That was poll 28; fifteen for Ms Brazil.

I have to say, in all fairness to Ms Brazil, she was up against a tough competitor and she was hand-picked. She was chosen by her party and I have to admire her for the effort that she put into it. If that is the best that the public saw, the voting public saw, then that is all we can do.

In Glovertown-Saunders Cove, the level of satisfaction, the people responded to Mr. Efford with 73 votes to 15 for Ms Brazil. It goes on.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope I never get hand-picked.

MR. SWEENEY: There is a danger in getting hand-picked, I say to the member. More like hand-plucked.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trinity North.

MR. SWEENEY: Trinity North. Name some of the communities there. Clarenville, Shoal Harbour. Let's look at Shoal Harbour. This one here, I must say, is a real strong hold for the Liberals. Poll 80(a) in Shoal Harbour, 84 to 21.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Poll 80(b) in Shoal Harbour, 93 to 25.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: This one here, poll 81 in Shoal Harbour, I have to say that the PC Party got a little bit closer here, it was 63 for Mr. Efford to 21. Much the same margin here in poll 82 in Shoal Harbour, it was 62 to 22. In Milton - oh, in Milton - I shouldn't read this out, I guess. What odds. Mr. Efford had 77 to Ms Brazil's 12. Georges Brook, 56 to 16 for Mr. Efford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: Harcourt to Barton, 79 to 13; Waterville-Gin Cove-Monroe, 23 to 9 for Mr. Efford, for the Liberal Party; Burgoynes Cove-New Burnt Cove, for the Liberal Party, 33 to 7; Elliott's Cove-Aspen Brook, 45 to 27; and Petley, 26 to 11.

I am going to get down now, I say to the hon. Minister of Government Services and Lands, I want to get to Hatchet Cove because I understand that is where the new MP has a little present hid away for the present member. He has an axe in Hatchet Cove, but in Petley 26 to 11; Way Bridge-Lady Cove, 46 to10.

Madam Speaker, these figures represent the level of satisfaction that the public has for the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Most importantly of all, 63.4 per cent, in rough figures, of the satisfaction expressed yesterday for the provincial government. The Liberal government in this Province is managing its fiscal resources as affirmed by Moody's last week.

I have to read some more figures here. I can understand now why the new MP, Mr. Efford, wants to have that meeting in Hatchet Cove. I have to say that Ms Brazil did win Hatchet Cove. She got 20 votes in Hatchet Cove to Mr. Efford's 10. So, I can see why the new MP wants to have a reunion, a meeting, in Hatchet Cove.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I will have to put on my glasses just to be sure, Minister. Yes, Hatchet Cove. I think, if I look at these numbers correctly, that was the only poll that Mr. Efford, the Liberals, lost in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.

We go back and look at Clarenville. Clarenville out there, 103 to 73 in poll 115. That is understandable, by the announcement that the minister made out there last week. I heard the Mayor of Clarenville on the radio, very happy - and expressed themselves in the paper as well - very happy with what the provincial government did for the Town of Clarenville. Gave them some funding to help sure up their capital works.

I look at Hillview and Dark Hole, 80 to35. Another poll in Clarenville, 112 to 60. Another one in Clarenville, 66 to 19. These are astounding numbers, you know, when you look at a by-election and the number of people who would go out and express such positive interest to reconfirm the Liberal reign of power in this Province.

I will take a break from those numbers because we are going to have a long evening.

On Monday morning past we did the numbers, the Estimates for the Finance committee, Public Service Commission, and I am pleased to say that those numbers went - we concluded that meeting within two hours, two-and-a-half hours. The minister responded well to a great line of questioning.

Overall, the Government Services Committee found great solace and peace in the fact that the Minister of Finance was reaffirmed last week by the Moody's Corporation for an A3 credit rating.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: The minister and her department. The minister obviously -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I know she is a great minister but, with the co-operation of her staff.

AN HON. MEMBER: And fellow colleagues.

MR. SWEENEY: And fellow colleagues, yes.

MR. MANNING: What about Gander and Grand Falls?

MR. SWEENEY: The member for research and development, from Placentia & St. Mary's, is asking about Gander-Grand Falls. Poll 24, Triton: 45 for Tulk, 23 for Barnes; Beaumont: 98 for Tulk, 27 for Barnes; South Brook: 48 for Tulk, 45 for Barnes; Sheppardville: 29 for Tulk and 8 for Barnes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: It is remarkable, 57 for Tulk and 52.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: How did he ever win? I figure there should be a recount. With these numbers, with the affirmation that the people have for the Liberal government in this Province, there should be a recount.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Buchans, I say to the Member for Windsor-Springdale: Tulk, 70, Barnes, 51; Buchans Junction: 46 to 30; Buchans itself: 102 to 37.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Springdale?

MR. SWEENEY: Springdale. Here is one for Springdale. Poll 9: 57 to 52 for Tulk; King's Point: 122 to 99.

Even with the spread in some of the other ones, the level of satisfaction for the government wasn't that bad. When you consider the popular vote for yesterday, May 13, again roughly 63.4 per cent of the popular vote went to the Liberal government.

Now, I have to look at Summerford. Poll 65 in Summerford: 47 for Mr. Tulk and 28 for Mr. Barnes. Another one: 40 for Tulk and 25 for Mr. Barnes.

So I say, Madam Speaker, when the people spoke yesterday, they spoke with 63 per cent.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, Madam Speaker, to conclude?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: No leave granted.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say, I am Vice-Chair of the Government Services Committee and we just heard the Chair of the Government Services Committee on his feet giving what I would call a very in-depth report on the Government Services Committee, reading off numbers from the election last night.

Madam Speaker, with respect to the Government Estimates Committees themselves, that committee is an extension of the House of Assembly. It is a Standing Committee, and we dealt with about five different departments. I will get into that, Madam Speaker, but before I do, I am just curious. I heard the Minister of Mines and Energy on his feet earlier today talking about Voisey's Bay, trying to rationalize Voisey's Bay, and what they are planning on doing with Voisey's Bay and Inco. We had the Member for Harbour Grace-Carbonear on his feet, the Chair of this committee, speaking for probably seventeen or eighteen minutes, out of the twenty, on the by-elections yesterday, the federal by-elections. One thing I did notice, he said that the government had 63 per cent of the popular vote; 63 per cent. Normally, if you have 63 per cent you would think you would win, but they won one seat and lost the other seat. The seat he did not mention, of course, was Gander-Grand Falls, the seat that we won as a party.

What I could easily get into it here and go on for twenty minutes is that that federal government seat contains the seat of the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It contains the seat of the member from Gander, who is the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. We have the Member for Grand Falls who is the Minister of Labour. We have the Minister of Fisheries seat. Four of these seats are in this federal seat and they lost. Now, Madam Speaker, what endorsement is that for these members?

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to point out to the hon. member, in case he does not know, that the records I saw of the vote last night in that district - the Minister of Fisheries seat was won handedly, I understand, by the Liberal candidate. The hon. member suggested that he lost that, and I do not think the hon. member would want to be inaccurate or put a wrong perspective on it.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Again, Madam Speaker, when the government side of the House is being questioned or anything put forward, they get up and try to deflect from the real issue. That is no endorsement of this Administration, let me tell you that, by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, lets deal with the real issue of what we are here for today, and that is the Concurrence Debate and the Government Services Estimates Committee and the hearings that we had. We dealt with the environment of course, the Department of Environment, and the minister was at that meeting. We had many questions, and the critic was in attendance at that meeting and had a lot of questions; good issues. We got some answers and I would say he dealt with it to the best of his ability. He is new in that department, Madam Speaker, although he had been in it previously a few years ago. He tried to deal with the issues. We had a lot of questions. We got some answers and many were not answered.

Also, we dealt with Works, Services and Transportation. Now, I happen to be the critic, Madam Speaker, for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. We were going on -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island says that I am a good critic, and I appreciate his support. I often get good compliments from that side of the House, Madam Speaker.

In the meantime, Works, Services and Transportation, a very, very important department and it is probably the one that affects many people across this Province. Day after day after day, we have members on this side of the House bringing forward petitions for road work within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Madam Speaker, we do not see a lot of petitions from that side of the House. We brought this up before. Every now and then they present a petition but do not speak to it, and that is to the extent that they deal with it. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation has to deal with all the roads in the Province, of course, all the government buildings they are responsible for, and the ferry systems that we have spoken so often on in this House of Assembly.

As a matter of fact, not long ago this side of the House presented a private member's resolution in this House of Assembly for a vessel replacement policy for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We saw members on the other side of the House of Assembly support that private member's resolution. What did we see? They said they were going to bring in a policy - it was the Speech from the Throne or the Budget Speech, I am not quite sure. The Minister of Finance said that they were going to introduce a vessel replacement policy, basically. And what did they do? What was the big announcement in the Budget? That they were going to finish and put more money into the Adelaide, a rust bucket, that they bought from Estonia for $700,000 three years ago. It is not in the system yet, and that is what they are going to talk about, the vessel replacement policy; far from what was considered, debated, discussed and approved in this House of Assembly. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation recently -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island makes a comment across the House about the two ferries. Now they are going to have a two-ferry system on the Bell Island run year-round, and rightly so. It is long overdue, but we must remember that it was this Administration that cut that ferry system some time ago, a few years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes they did, I say to the member, and cut a lot of other things in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will not get into that too much.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; I went through every subhead in the Estimates here which we have and every department. Every dollar that is supposed to be spent in each individual department is supposed to be in the Estimates for the Budget each year. We see so often that this Administration usually do not adhere to the Estimates. In these Estimates, of course, we have what was budgeted last year, what was spent and what is budgeted this year. Many, many times they go over, and then they try to rationalize it. That is where we ask the questions in the Estimates Committee in this very House of Assembly and try to get answers.

It is rather peculiar that we are now discussing the Budget basically, the Estimates and the Concurrence before this House of Assembly. We said it so often in the past: the Budget is not an honest document, by any stretch of the imagination in my mind, Madam Speaker. It is not, and I will tell you why. Because they are saying that the deficit this year is going to be, I think, $93 million. Now I have to compare it to previous years. Last year, I believe, there was some $30 million-plus they said, the government said, on Budget Day; a thirty something million dollar deficit. We said it would be more like $350 million; exactly what it panned out to be. The year before that, Madam Speaker, when I was the critic for Finance, they said there was going to be a $22 million deficit and we said at the time that it would be more like $225 million.

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General came out in her report at the end of the year, and what did she say? Our figures were right on, within 4 or 5 per cent, each year. Now, this administration is trying to say that the budget deficit this year is going to be $93 million when they have raided the Labrador Initiative Fund for the ferry system in Labrador. They are going to take that money now and put it into God's know what, the general revenues to try and balance the budget; trying to give a false impression that the deficit is something that it is not. We see it so often, these one-shot fixes. We seen it the other day when the critic for Finance, the Member for Ferryland, was on his feet talking about what the Bank of Montreal had said with respect to these one-shot deals, these one-shot fixes, where the government over the past three or four years, are giving the false impression of the figures of the deficit of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just to get back to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation again Madam Speaker. It is a huge department, we have a lot of workers, we have part-time workers in the wintertime and we see now this year, what I am understanding, is that the department is cut to the bone so much now that they do not have any money for maintenance. We see, during the winter months, this past winter, that the hours that the plows and the trucks were operating on the roads were cutback. After a certain hour in the night they were not going out. It did not matter what was on the go, what the weather conditions were, they were not going out. I discussed it with a number of people, and talked to people in the various depots and what have you, and the big problem here, of course, are the people who work night shifts. I can go on and on with respect to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

The Department of Finance; as I said, we questioned the Minister of Finance, I think it was yesterday morning here in the House of Assembly. The Member for Ferryland, the critic, had a lot of questions. We were here for probably three hours, I would think, at least three hours to deal with the Department of Finance and what is happening and the issues within that department. There was a gamut of concern, of course, and one of the things that came up was the Public Service Commission.

Years ago, when the Public Service Commission was being properly utilized, if we had a position within the civil service, it was advertised, you would be interviewed - if you were lucky enough to get an interview for a position - and the Public Service Commission would hire you. That is not happening any more, Madam Speaker, it is not happening. What is happening now is, the line departments are hiring; and one of the major problems that we are seeing, and we brought this up, the critic and myself, one of the major problems that we are seeing is that a lot of positions are being advertised as temporary positions. People are coming into those positions, and I won't say they are politically appointed, but they get into those positions and when they become permanent, the person who went into that position has the upper hand to get the full-time position. It is kind of circumventing the full intent of the Public Service Commission, to be impartial and to get people who are properly trained and qualified, into positions.

I will give you an example, Madam Speaker, of what I am talking about. The minister denied that this was happening, but this is happening. I know of a division within government, a division, where there was a position, a supervisory position, and there was a person brought in from the outside, absolutely no training in that field, none. There were people working in that division who had the qualifications, the experience, applied for that job, and did not get it.

Now, the minister could not believe that this was happening. I said, I will give you an example of what is really happening, something that is easily understandable. Take, for example, Madam Speaker, if a nurse supervisor position became open on one of the wards in, say, the Health Sciences Centre and the position was advertised or whatever the case may be. They could bring someone in, someone with no training , an engineer, say, and put them in that position. How can an engineer in that position do that job? That is the kind of comparison that I am making. I am not saying that happened, but a situation occurs where people are going into positions, who are not trained and not qualified, and what does that do for the morale within the Public Service Commission? That is happening, there is no doubt about that.

Another department that we did, I was just about to mention, the Department of Government Services and Lands. I have to say, I am after doing this and I don't want to fill up the minister's head too much, but I have to say that at least he was prepared. There is no doubt about that. He was prepared, and his staff did an excellent job for him, no doubt about that, with respect to getting him prepared, Madam Speaker. So, they did a good job on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good opening statement, (inaudible) long.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is another point. He had an opening statement when we had the Estimates meeting and he went on for twenty-two minutes. What he tried to do, in actual fact, was a pre-emptive strike, to say that we would have no questions, that he would have answered them all before we asked. But he was sort of in a bit of a shock when reality hit, when we started asking the questions, the many questions we did have.

MR. E. BYRNE: Jack, do you remember when we walked in and he said (inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. I was just reminded by the Member for Kilbride that, when the table personnel were there, and government members were on that side of the House, the staff, to answer the questions, myself and the Member for Kilbride walked in and what did he say? Here comes the problem now.

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you know what I said?

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't remember.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) solution to the problem.

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly. The Member for Kilbride said, Madam Speaker: No, here comes the solution. That is just a little side story there. I will give him his due. The Minister of Government Services and Lands was prepared. I have to say that. A lot of stuff that he said, of course, and the answers he gave, I did not necessarily agree with, but at least he had an answer. I had a lot of questions that got answered.

I happened to fill in, too, at the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Of course, with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, we are all getting calls with respect to the Provincial Home Repair Program. The minister is telling us now that they are basically finished with 1998 applications, the year of 1998. They are into 1999. The problem we have here now, we are only dealing with emergencies or urgent situations with respect to home repairs in our Province.

We all have people who try to get work done on their homes. It could be replacing windows, it could be leaky roofs, it could be wiring problems or what have you. They make application to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, especially some of the seniors out there who have been living in homes, for many, many years, that need repairs. The critic, the Member for Baie Verte, has asked questions in this House on many occasions with respect to that program. Something needs to be done with that program, Madam Speaker. The members who were there to answer the questions tried, I suppose, to give the impression that things are improving, and maybe they are. Maybe they are improving - I won't say they are not - but are they improving enough, when we have seniors, probably in their eighties, looking to have repairs done on their homes, leaking windows, pipes or whatever the case may be, might have to wait three years to get their repairs done. That is just really not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy was on his feet today and he was trying to rationalize for the people of the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is in his seat there now and he wants me to say a few things about Works, Services and Transportation. The problem is - and the people listening and seeing this know I have already spoken on the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. I said that the minister was there and he had his staff in place and they tried to answer our questions. Some questions they could not answer. Again, he was another minister who was fortunate enough to have good people around him within the department with respect to the civil servants, who were there to answer the questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: They had a tough job.

MR. J. BYRNE: They had a tough job, and one of the reasons why, of course, when we got into the Labrador Initiative Fund, with respect to the ferry system up there, the $97 million that the members for Labrador are so proud to support, that they are taking that $97 million away from Labrador and putting it into the general revenues, he had a bit of a difficult time with that one, I say, Madam Speaker.

MR. COLLINS: Not all members (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I stand corrected. The NDP Member for Labrador West did not. He doesn't support that. I am talking about the government members, the Liberal members.

The Department of Works, Services and Transportation, as I said - the minster is looking for a few compliments over there. I suggest that he get Hansard and read Hansard. I didn't say anything too negative towards him today, I don't think. He is trying to do his best, I suppose, but sometimes best is not good enough or acceptable.

Again, the Minister of Mines and Energy was on his feet today trying to rationalize this deal that they are about to make with Inco. They want the House of Assembly closed, and we are getting feedback that this deal is coming much sooner than later. We have discussed it here in the House of Assembly. We have petitions from all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We presented seven here yesterday; and we had five or six presented this afternoon. We are getting petitions from government members' districts. We are getting them from the Premier's district. We are getting them from all over. I got a lot from my district. The government members who are over there now opposing this, and making comments, should understand that the Opposition, as an Official Opposition of the House of Assembly, has a job to do, and we are going to do that. You must remember - they should remember on that side of the House - what happened a number of years ago with the former Premier when they tried to privatize Hydro. What we did here, we presented petition after petition after petition and what has happened, Madam Speaker? They decided that they would not sell it off. Thank God for that, no doubt about that, but what has happened since then? How much money have they taken out of Newfoundland Hydro over the past few years to help balance the Budget in Newfoundland and Labrador? They were going to let that go. They were prepared, all members over there were prepared, to let Newfoundland Hydro be sold off to probably some of their buddies. I don't know who would have gotten it; but, Madam Speaker, it is still there. We opposed it on this side of the House.

Let me tell you something else. There were people out there trying to take credit for the stopping of Newfoundland Hydro. We on this side of the House, for weeks on end, were trying to stop that with petitions and finally the people caught up on it and heard what we were saying and got up against it and they stopped it.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave granted.

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

The people in the Province got up against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and today we are now trying to force this Administration to bring before this House of Assembly, the deal that they are going to sign. We want it here before they sign it, before it is a done deal.

I saw the Minister of Mines and Energy stand in his place today and say: We are going to make it public. We are going to make it public so that it will be transparent, the deal. The problem is: When, Madam Speaker, when are they going to make it public? After the deal is signed, before we can have the input here on this side of the House, before the people of the Province can have an input.

I want to talk about ore leaving the Province. I will not go on too long, Madam Speaker. They are talking about shipping ore out of the Province. The minister, today, started to play with words. They are not talking about ore any more now, they are talking about concentrate leaving the Province, that it has to go through a concentrator to become concentrate and then we can ship it out for thirty-five years, Madam Speaker.

Answer this. This boils down to a priority, a priority for Inco. This is what this boils down to, Madam Speaker. The point I am going to make is this: We have the ore in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Labrador, in Voisey's Bay. We have the rich ovoid, which is easily mined, okay. They are going to say now, they are going to let ore leave this Province and come back ten or fifteen or twenty years down the road - I think the Premier used thirty-five years. Now, we have Sudbury, Ontario; we have Thompson, Manitoba. We have the ore here now. There are going to be 300 jobs created in Sudbury alone, and they are saying, when we have the rich ore here now, they are going to ship it away to Sudbury and Thompson. They are the priority for Inco now. They are the priority, those areas. Thirty years down the road, when the rich ovoid is gone and we do not have it here, they are going to say Newfoundland is now a priority. They are going to ship it back from somewhere, we do not know where, somewhere in the world. That, in itself, is enough to question it. The priority of Inco is Sudbury and Thompson, when we have the rich ore. When the rich ore is gone, they are going to say we are going to become the priority and they are going to ship it back. It is almost too ludicrous to talk about, Madam Speaker. It is almost too foolish to talk about.

Again, if they are intent on making a deal, signing a deal with Voisey's, Inco, and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it should be brought before this House of Assembly. The people are saying it, and I honestly believe that the vote last night in Gander-Grand Falls was an indication to this government of what they want. Their own John Efford said - the man who got elected in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has said himself what we are saying.

I found it strange today, Madam Speaker, that they were on their feet trying to say it was 63 per cent. By far, the majority of that number was in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. It had to be. We won Gander-Grand Falls. It is funny for them to say now: We, as a party, the Liberal Party, won Bonavista-Trinity-Conception; that vote was a vote for Mr. Efford. It wasn't a vote for the Province, for the Liberals in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, it is an example of the desperation of that group over there. They are trying to grasp at straws.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: They are trying to grasp at straws to get a little good news anywhere at all.

Madam Speaker, Voisey's Bay is one of the major issues in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today. Bringing it before this House of Assembly is a major issue and the shipping of ore out of this Province is a major issue.

I have gone on a bit beyond my time, so what I am going to do is sit down. I wanted to say, at least when I was on my feet - the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace was on his feet for twenty minutes and he was talking, really, foolishness. He hardly talked at all about the Government Services Committee, the different departments, the ones that we asked question on, and the ministers and their staff; had hardly anything to do with that. He was up about nonsense, Madam Speaker.

I will certainly be up again this evening. I think the House is going to be sitting tonight, from what I understand, Madam Speaker. I am going to give someone on this side of the House a chance to say a few words.

Thank you for your time.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I wanted to have a few words on the Government Services Committee today. Before I do that, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace did want the opportunity to thank the members of his committee; however, he did not have leave to do so, so I will do so now on his behalf. He wanted to thank all the members who served on that committee, including the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Bay of Islands, myself, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Baie Verte, and the Member for Torngat Mountains. The member asked me to pass that along and to thank the committee members for their service.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to have a few words on the Estimates for this particular committee because it deals with very important business of the government. Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, handles some of the most important programs that are being provided to people in our communities around the Province. If there is one item, I guess, in every budget that all the municipalities in my district always look forward to, it is Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to see what kind of money is going to be invested for capital infrastructure and for cost-shared agreements for their municipalities.

Madam Speaker, as I sat through most of the Estimates Committees for this particular Government Services Committee, I can tell you that there were a number of questions, a number of new programs that were presented, and this year, even under Municipal and Provincial Affairs, there is something like $100 million that will be committed for municipal infrastructure this year, including being able to put water and sewer into communities, to be able to aid in the construction of recreational facilities and community facilities, and to be able to do some important programs around water treatment and water purification for communities, to ensure there is good drinking water there.

Under Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, Madam Speaker, this is one of the most important programs that, I think, we deliver to families within the Province. This program is used a lot in my district. A lot of people access money under this program to be able to do repairs to their homes, especially at this time of year. There is a lot of eagerness to see if their applications are going to be approved so that they can do this type of work; because a lot of the people want to be able to access the money to be able to make upgrades and repairs to their homes, whether it be having to have new siding, or siding replaced, windows replaced, doors replaced. As you know, in Labrador sometimes we get some pretty harsh winters and some pretty cold climate. A program like this goes a long way to helping families who are living on low income or limited amounts of dollars, that they can avail of to be able to invest into this type of project, and especially for our seniors, too, Madam Speaker. I have a lot of seniors and I am sure there are seniors all across the Province who avail of money through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and it is a good program.

Madam Speaker, I want to comment a little bit on the Department of Finance and the Public Service Commission. It was already mentioned that, you know, we have been able to make some very prudent decisions in terms of financial management, but I think the point I want to raise that should not go unnoticed is certainly the agreements that we have been able to negotiate with our public sector workers over the last year. We have some of the best deals across the country that we have been able to negotiate with our public sector workers, being able to give them a 15 per cent increase over the next three years.

We only have to listen to the news each and every evening to see what is happening across the country. In British Columbia, you know, you have a lot people who are being laid off. A lot of people out on the street. A lot of protests by nurses and by teachers. We have seen it happen in Ontario and we have seen it happen in Nova Scotia. So, obviously, we have shown a tremendous respect to our public service. We have shown how much we appreciate the work that they do in our Province, and wherever possible, we have made the appropriate allocations and the appropriate raises and agreements with our workers. Yes, no doubt, sometimes we have to feel a little bit of a crunch because of that generous expenditure that we were able to make but, nevertheless, it is all a part of governing and it is all a part of being able to maintain services at a certain level and a particular level in order to service the public. That is certainly what they do and they provide a major role in our Province in being able to do that. So, I am very proud that this government was able to do those negotiations and do the negotiations with the teachers and with the nurses and with all the other groups, of course, within the public service and be able to achieve a deal that is both sensible and also, it allows our government to live within its means and allows the public service, itself, to have some pride in terms of the work that they do and value for the work that they do, and that is very important.

Under the Government Services and Lands Department, I guess everything goes because anything that you want to deal with from birth to death, I mean, you go through this particular department. Obviously, we have been using the services of this department a great deal. Since the road has been built through Labrador, we fall under some different regulations with regard to land zoning and land use. It is important that the business of this department is carried out in a way where people feel they can access the service, and they have access to individuals and people to be able to help them. Over the last few years we have seen government service centres distributed all around the Province in terms of being able to locate them wherever possible in certain growth areas or in particular areas where people can at least access the service and they have someone to contact. It is kind of like a centre to coordinate all the activities, applications and so on, that they need to do, and obviously this is very important.

Also, I want to talk a little bit on the Works, Services and Transportation committee. Works, Services and Transportation; a lot of people do not always realize the magnitude of this department and the responsibilities that it has for works and most all the public buildings across the Province. It is no doubt a big job and a lot of responsibility. This department also looks after the very important transportation needs of the people within our Province. I do not think it is any secret that we have needs in transportation that we are currently trying to address and make sure that they are being met.

We probably have communities in every single district of this Province that wants to access more revenues for road upgrading and road construction and to be able to make the necessary alterations in transportation within their respective regions. We certainly understand that, and that is why we have been very diligent in our work with the federal government to try and negotiate new deals, new cost-shared deals, to allow us to flow more money into communities and into particular regions of the Province to do the necessary upgrading and road work that needs to be done. Certainly, very soon there will be announcements of some $20 million in road work that will happen over the course of this year. Some communities, no doubt, will be happy and some will really not be happy because their need is so great that this only meets a very small portion of it, but no doubt, it goes a long way to try and help alleviate the problem. That has certainly been a commitment that they have undertaken. Unless there are new agreements, new federal-provincial cost-shared agreements, that look at this particular issue and gives it the significant priority that it requires, I mean, unfortunately we are all going to be in the same situation in terms of the amount of time it will take to make the necessary upgrades.

I know today the Member for Labrador West raised the issue of wanting to have roads upgraded on the highway between Churchill Fall and Labrador City. Of course, while there is money allocated to do that work this year it may not be able to do the upgrade on the full 130 kilometres, but it will certainly be a start in meeting what the need is in that area and addressing the areas where there is, probably, the most need, and addressing the areas that are a priority right now so that the road can come to a certain standard to allow heavy equipment, the truck drivers and so on, to use this road in order to do the work that they need to do.

On the marine services, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation has had a big file in Labrador over the last year just to readdress the whole configuration of transportation services alone. That is not an easy job, Mr. Speaker, when you have to deal with some thirty-odd communities, many of them which are isolated from one another, and to be able to configure a transportation system that is acceptable to all the people, but also meets their needs sufficiently and satisfactorily, both in the transport of freight and goods and in the transport of passengers. That has certainly been a big file and not an easy one to be able to put together. Obviously, with the input of other members here, like the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Minister for Labrador, it has been done. I firmly believe that the people in the coast of Labrador, both the north and south coast, will have a much better service this year in terms of the marine service then they have had for quite a long time. I know that can be difficult sometimes for other people to understand. We have communities that were normally only getting a marine service, throughout the summer, every ten to fourteen days. Now that will be provided to them on a weekly basis, in some cases, and in other cases they will get a boat or a ferry three times a week. That is a significant difference in terms of the transportation system that they had been used to in the past and certainly what will be in place this year.

All of these things, Mr. Speaker, have made a tremendous difference. Having been a part of the committee to review the estimates of each of these departments it is quite obvious that all of them are very active departments that are handling some major files within government. They are obviously out there consulting with people, listening to what they have to say, structuring and revamping their programs to meet what their need is. That became quite obvious, because any time you have programs like those offered by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, you really get an understanding that you are really reaching out and meeting what the actual needs of people are. In order to be able to do that you always have to have consultation.

Governments often get criticized because they say they consult too much or people are consulted to death, but in order to be able to make good decisions and productive decisions, you have to seek the input of people. Governments should never tire of listening to what people have to say, and not just listen, but listen to act and listen to be able to implement, in terms of what their needs are and ensuring that their needs are met. I can tell you, that is why you have consistent changes in all government departments and all government programs, because without listening to people you would never change. Having listened to people, seeing what they want, it becomes a time to act, and we have certainly seen that in the last year as we have seen a number of new programs implemented, as well as new things that have been taken on, like the new collective agreements with the Public Service and with other groups that have been, no doubt, historical within the last ten years and have shown great understanding on this government's behalf in terms of what the people want and what needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go on much longer, other than to reiterate that the work of all these departments is very important, and also to reiterate that a number of the things we focused on in Works, Services and Transportation did pertain to Labrador more so than any other region, and to say that the service that is being implemented there, and being put together to tender at this particular time, is a far better service than people have been used to in the past.

The new agreement to construct the Phase III of the highway, which is a commitment of some $102 million by this government over the next six years to see that piece of road connected between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, is no minor undertaking. That is for certain. It is also a very important piece to the transportation network in Labrador. I know that sometimes when people talk about the $97 million, they talk about the marine services, they talk about the roads in Labrador, and so on and so forth, they do so without actually having been there, seen it, been a part of it, and when they do they certainly have a greater understanding of what happens there. I know the challenges in every area are different, but I can also tell you that the challenges in this particular part of our Province have been great when it comes to transportation, and it has been no small task to deal with them. I am proud to say that this is a government that is dealing with them. They are no longer putting them on the back burner, hiding it somewhere else and hoping that it will go away. It has pulled it out, it has made it a front issue, it is on top of the pile and I can tell you that it is being dealt with and dealt with very adequately, in my opinion; over what is seen to be a very sufficient period of time, too, I may add, Mr. Speaker. It is all right to sit down and say that we will do this and we will do that and we will do something else, but when you actually see it happening and it is being done and the commitment is there and it is working and it is working for the people, it is a whole different ball game. That is certainly what has happened in this case.

I mean, the situation within Labrador, the barriers to transportation, the challenges that have been faced, is no longer being swept away and hidden. It is being dealt with and it is being dealt with up front, in the public, and we are seeing the results of it; even last year and this year, in particular, Mr. Speaker, because the whole configuration of the service is changing and it is changing for the benefit of the people in that particular area.

I can say it has been a pleasure to sit on this Committee, the Government Services Committee, to do the estimates for these five departments. I certainly want to recognize the commitments that were made by the ministers in each of those departments because, you know, it takes a lot of time sometimes to review these estimates. There are an awful lot of questions that have to be addressed, and I can honestly say that all the questions that were posed were answered, and if they were not answered, information was sought and given back to committee members. It certainly speaks well of those particular ministers and how they run their departments.

Mr. Speaker, on that note I will conclude my remarks. I will conclude them just by saying, it is important, I think, that the public also see and experience first-hand the programs that are being implemented by these particular departments. I am sure there are many out there that have been recipients of many of these programs through Municipal Affairs, through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and through Government Services and Lands and other departments. They certainly, I am sure, appreciate the responsibility that government has taken in terms of being able to deliver these programs to people no matter where they are in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in these concurrence debates this afternoon for a few minutes, as we talk about the concurrence debates as it relates to Government Services. I did have the opportunity, in my capacity as critic for the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, to sit in on the Estimates meetings while the minister and his deputy minister, who is stationed in Goose Bay, Mr. Sparkes, I believe, were present. It was an opportunity to engage fully in debate and question and answer session with respect to this very important department.

I have to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that the minister was very forthright and direct in his responses and we covered much of the material, of course, that is pertinent to this department, in particular, as it relates to Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, in particular Aboriginal Affairs, and agreements that are presently ongoing as it relates to the overall issue of the Voisey's Bay development.

However, there was one very interesting difference of opinion on that very point, and I am speaking, in particular, Mr. Speaker, of the side issues that are being debated now, the Chapter with respect to the Aboriginal land claims as it relates to the ongoing and, hopefully, imminent announcement with respect Voisey's Bay, and that had to do with this whole process of ratification.

Minister, you may recall that we had an interesting discussion and debate on the process of ratification, what is involved and what the process would be once an agreement is entered into between the company and the Aboriginal groups. In other words, how does it then become formalized from a procedural point of view and how does any agreement then become binding and finalized. It was interesting that very day, as I recall, that issue was raised in the House of Assembly and, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the Province made it quite clear that any agreements, any discussions on land claims as it relates to our Aboriginal groups in our Province, namely the LIA and the Innu Nation, that any such agreements and any such land claim agreements would be brought back to the House of Assembly for ratification purposes. I remember the minister that very morning indicating that any finalized agreement with respect to the issue of land claims would not require to bring it back to the House of Assembly for ratification but could be done at the executive level. In other words, could be agreed upon, presumably, by both levels of government, both the executive level in Ottawa and the executive level here in our own Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We were certainly pleased, as members of the Opposition, to hear that these agreements, as important as they are and as inclusive as they are - because they include so many features as it relates to the interests of our Aboriginal peoples - but these agreements would be brought back for an open and full debate and discussion for ratification purposes in our own Legislature. As I say, that point was a significant difference, I might add, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the information that was shared with us by the minister earlier that morning. We did have an important debate. We did have an important discussion as it relates to Aboriginal issues, and as I indicated, we certainly thank the minister for his forthright responses.

As it relates to the Major Projects Update; I recall that both during the Estimates meetings of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs and the Estimates meetings on the resource sector, namely the Mines and Energy department, the issue of major projects was raised. The reason I mention that now is that it was only a few short weeks ago that the Minister of Mines and Energy shared with the people of the Province a document that he called a Major Projects Update. It is interesting what the minister had to say approximately two months ago, some seven or eight weeks ago, with respect to major projects, which of course included both Voisey's Bay and the development of the Lower Churchill.

He states in the Major Projects Update of March past: "...the majority of issues...", as it relates to Voisey's Bay, Mr. Speaker, "... under discussion have been resolved." The minister goes on to say that in the fall of last year there were "...three or four fundamental issues remained outstanding and needed further negotiation." The statement continued: "While not all of these issues have yet been fully resolved, good progress has been made on various aspects of each issue."

The statement continues to indicate: "Negotiations have continued over the past number of months. Scott Hand, Deputy Chairman and CEO of Inco, and I continue to discuss the remaining outstanding issues which must be successfully concluded before a commercial arrangement can be signed."

The statement continues to state: "The province's fundamental position on the remaining outstanding issues has been clearly articulated to Inco." And that, "A guarantee of a processing facility in the province, full processing to a finished nickel product in the province, a guarantee that the amount of concentrate that may leave the province in the early years of a project will be returned to the province for processing, and acceptable development timelines, are required elements of any acceptable deal on Voisey's Bay."

The statement continues to go on and indicate that, obviously, "Government remains committed to negotiating a Voisey's Bay deal that will provide substantial benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador." The statement concludes that this is a mandate and that this is the mandate that the government has received.

However, the sentence or the paragraph that I just read, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the outstanding issues is worthy of repeating because these are clearly the issues that the government, just a few short weeks ago, felt was sufficiently important to indicate to the people of the Province as to why an agreement had not been reached and obviously, the government, through the minister, was prepared to share that information with the people of the Province.

Lets repeat it. "The province's fundamental position on the remaining outstanding issues has been clearly articulated to Inco. A guarantee of a processing facility in the province..." - a guarantee of a full processing facility - "...full processing to a finished nickel product in the province, a guarantee that the amount of concentrate that may leave the province in the early years of a project will be returned to the province for processing, and acceptable development timelines, are required....." features of an agreement that this government would consider acceptable with respect to the Voisey's Bay development.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been much debate in this House as to the need and the requirement for this very important issue to be brought before this Legislature which, of course, is what we are really saying as an Opposition and what I would venture to say the majority of the people of the Province are saying. By having this issue debated in this Legislature is obviously debating this fully, on behalf of and for the benefit of, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. These features that are in this Major Projects Update that was read in this Legislature before the people of the Province several weeks ago, this particular update outlines clearly what the outstanding features of a successful agreement would include, and it explained fully, according to the minister, as to why an agreement, up to this point, has not been reached.

Surely, I say, Mr. Speaker, that when we consider features such as a guarantee of a processing facility in the Province, full processing taking place in this Province, a guarantee that any concentrate, if it leaves the Province, would come back and when it would come back. These are of sufficient importance that the people of the Province would, you would think, have the right to hear exactly what those details and particulars are, and would have the right to be a part of and participate in any full and open and disclosed debate.

As my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, said earlier this afternoon on another point: What is it that government is afraid of? Right now the government has a majority in this Legislature. There are some twenty-six members who right now on the government side can vote in favour of or against any particular motion, or in favour of or against any particular piece of legislation, while on the Opposition side, our numbers total twenty. The mathematics is quite simple. That is any issue that comes before this House, whether it is a motion, a resolution, a piece of legislation, anything that is voted upon, clearly would be voted upon, and if an agreement is acceptable to members opposite, if an agreement is acceptable to government members, obviously they will vote in favour of it. If an agreement is questioned - and that is really the main purpose. There may very well be features of an agreement that obviously after a full and open debate, we too would support, but we cannot blindly, Mr. Speaker, without knowing the particulars and without knowing any details, support any agreement. It does not have to be an agreement on such an important issue as a major public policy issue as Voisey's Bay. It could be any agreement, any contract that deals with the resources of this Province, and, in saying that, really dealing on behalf of the interest of the people of the Province.

So the question has to be asked, and the question that puzzles us on this side is: Why is it that government is afraid to share with the people of the Province the details and the particulars of an agreement, particularly as it relates to such an important issue, not only for the present obviously, but for the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? I mean, it is such a basic question. Questions can be asked. Issues can be raised. We can, on behalf of the people of the Province, as members of the Opposition, voice the concerns, express the issues, ask the pertinent questions; and if, at the end of the day when that process is completed, Mr. Speaker, if when all is said and done and it comes to a vote, to ratify an agreement before it is binding and final on behalf of the people of the Province, the numbers on the government side would have the day. The numbers on the government side would outnumber the numbers on the Opposition side. So, it puzzles me and certainly it troubles members on this side of the House as to why a simple decision to bring back any agreement, to bring back any contract simply subject to the full and open debate, in other words to be fully ratified and agreed upon by Members of the House of Assembly, why that issue is so difficult for members opposite to agree to and accept.

That is right now perhaps the issue which the public of this Province is fully supportive of. I had the honour last week to speak before the Rotary Club in Stephenville, Mr. Speaker, on this very point, and it is was amazing how many individuals came up to me afterwards and simply said to me: We agree with you. We agree with you. Everybody wants an agreement. We want an agreement. We know government wants an agreement. We want to see development move forward, particularly as it relates to our natural resources, but not to the exclusion of participation in a parliamentary democracy by the people in the Province who simply own the resource and are the major beneficiaries of the resource.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are saying. As an Opposition, that is certainly a premise and a principle that we will continue to uphold, and that is the position that we will continue to maintain because we feel it is only fair that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know fully the details and the ingredients and the particulars of an agreement before it becomes final and binding, before it is etched in stone, and before the people of the Province are saddled with a deal that maybe perhaps, unfortunately - and obviously this is something that we do not want to see - perhaps in generations to come they will look back and say: This could have been done differently. Why wasn't this question asked? Why wasn't this point of view put forward? I would like to be, as one Member of the House of Assembly, and I am sure I speak on behalf of all my colleagues, we would all like to be able to say that we were honest and genuine and true participants in that debate, and that can only be done, Mr. Speaker, when the opportunity arises.

It is incumbent, I would say to members opposite, that in all fairness and in all good conscience, that they reconsider this position. We want to entertain and be participants of this debate, and we can only do so when that opportunity is given to us, which is really the opportunity being given to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, on such a very important issue. That is essentially what our position has been in the past and I say, Mr. Speaker, it will certainly continue to be.

Mr. Speaker, the second issue that I referred to briefly before we adjourned, and it was also a part of the major projects update that was given, was on the development of the Lower Churchill. It was interesting, we certainly touched on this during the Estimates meetings with the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, but perhaps this topic was certainly much more pronounced during the Estimates meetings in Mines and Energy. We raised the issue of Alcoa, and where are we with Alcoa? Are there any meaningful and ongoing discussions now either with Alcoa or with the Province of Quebec, or indeed any partner in the New England States or any private representative? It is was interesting to know and it was interesting to hear, Mr. Speaker, when the minister said talks are ongoing, talks are continuing.

Again, Mr. Speaker, nothing of any real substance. Nothing that we could hang our hat on in hope and say to the people of the Province that, yes, there may be something meaningful and maybe something substantive for the people of Newfoundland to join in and celebrate.

As part of that major projects update that was given, Mr. Speaker, the same time that the update was given on Voisey's Bay, a number of weeks ago, the minister stated that development of the Lower Churchill has presented significant challenges over the past thirty years, distance to market, ensuring adequate transmission capacity, and securing a long-term customer has always been the challenge.

The minister went on to say that in July past a preliminary feasability review with Alcoa was undertaken. He then went on to say that in December past, some six or seven months afterwards, Alcoa presented their findings to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, what we have here, Mr. Speaker, are discussions, feasability studies, a review of possible contracting or agreements between the Province and Alcoa, but to this point nothing of any real significance.

There was a great hullabaloo, I remember, in July of last year when I believe the minister, either through a press conference or a press release, certainly gave some energy to the people of the Province and some hope in indicating that maybe we have found a partner with respect to the development of the Lower Churchill, this partner being the great aluminum giant called Alcoa.

Since that time, here we are in May of 2002, some ten months later, and we are still in discussion, we are still involved in perhaps long-distance discussions, I would suggest, between the government of this Province and officials of the aluminum giant, but we are nowhere near - and this became clear when the Minister of Mines and Energy responded to this question during the Estimates - we are nowhere near to even contemplating an agreement, Mr. Speaker. We are nowhere near that.

I then posed a question during the Estimates meeting: Is it possible that the Province of Quebec may be interested in being a partner in an agreement between the Province of Newfoundland and the Province of Quebec?

Other than some vague generalities by the minister simply saying yes, discussions are ongoing, and yes, we have a couple of people dedicated to the ongoing relationship between Hydro-Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, really we have nothing of any real substance or any significance as it relates to the development of this great public policy issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that several weeks ago when we were given a Major Projects Update as it relates to Voisey's Bay and Lower Churchill, that perhaps certainly as it relates to the Lower Churchill, we are perhaps nowhere closer to any real hope for a meaningful agreement in the very near future.

We saw signs last week, Mr .Speaker, that we may be close to a deal on Voisey's Bay. Certainly, on behalf of members on this side of the House, we hope there will be an agreement soon on the Voisey's Bay question, but the deal has to be right. It has to be right for the future of this Province. It has to be right for the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that can only be done after a full and open debate, being participated in by all members of this Legislature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, in that it is four minutes to closing time, we will just recess now until 6:45 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House is now recessed until 6:45 p.m.

The House resumed sitting at 6:45 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

When we adjourned we were on the Concurrence Debate with the Government Services Committee report and I believe the hon. Member for St. John's East concluded his debate.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to make a few comments on debate after everybody had their break and hopefully rejuvenated and ready to go for another while here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to make some comment especially with respect to Municipal Affairs and Transportation, along with the other ones, but those two in particular. I make reference to some points made by some hon. members earlier here today, especially the Chairman when he got up to speak, although he did not speak a lot about Concurrence Debate. As a matter of fact, he continued to read out results of the by-elections from yesterday. I will not touch that yet, bu I will have a few words to say about it later.

On Municipal Affairs, especially the reference she made to the home repair program, it was an issue I raised just a couple of days ago in the House and I just want to make a few points on it. First of all, he was right when he started to speak about it. The fact is, that there is a major backlog with home repair in this Province. For people who do not know it well, the home repair program simply helps out lower income families in this Province in their own homes who try to keep their houses at a livable condition, just so that - windows, doors, leaky roofs and so on, and the minister knows it quite well. It is for the basics so that their homes are at least comfortable to live in.

The point I made a couple of days ago, Mr. Speaker, is that the long part of this list are the seniors in our Province, the elderly people. We have to remember that many homes in Newfoundland and Labrador are still lived in by seniors who have raised large families, for the most part. I know I come from a large family, and I know many colleagues on this side and the other side of the House who have large families. Their parents, either their mother or father are still living or both, and after raising a large family, Mr. Speaker, they are fortunate and lucky enough to have their health and to be able to stay living in their own homes. Now, that is the circumstance that I was trying to point out in Question Period with the minister just a few days ago, that the seniors in our Province, our parents and grandparents in some cases, are still living in their own homes, still able to do that, still healthy enough to live in their own homes and God bless them for that.

As a matter of fact, when we look at it, Mr. Speaker, that is saving the government money in a way because at least they do not have to go into homes and so on, and look at using more taxpayers dollars so that they have to be taken care of. But in this particular case we have to be pleased when a senior in this Province, an elderly person, has the health to be able to stay in their own home. The point I was making, I made it to the minister and maybe the minister will respond some time later tonight to this particular program, the home repair program and in particular, the seniors in our Province who stay in their own homes.

Now, I have had it reported to me, Mr. Speaker, from my own constituents but also from other constituents from other districts who have called me under the portfolio of Municipal Affairs and asked me if it is in fact true that last year Newfoundland and Labrador Housing reported that they are some three years backlogged. The chairman of the committee, when he stood up talked about that, was delighted. He was almost excited that we are not dealing with 1998 anymore. We are now catching up he said - that is the words he used, I believe. (Inaudible) dealing with 1998 cases before, people who have applied for this funding since 1998. Now we are dealing with 1999. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is any great achievement. When you look at the people in our Province, like our seniors and people with low incomes, who are trying to keep their houses to a comfortable level so that the windows and doors and at least the roofs are not leaking - the chairman of the committee seems to think that it is a great achievement that we are now dealing with 1999 cases in the year 2000-2001.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing reported last year that there is, in fact, a three year backlog of people applying for home repair and that this year - I think the minister answered a couple of days ago when I asked it. On top of that three year backlog, this year Newfoundland and Labrador Housing are reporting that there are approximately - maybe a little bit more, a little bit less - another 1,000 requests added to that long list of people waiting for home repair.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that people are not very clear on - as a matter of fact it is quite confusing, especially to the people I have spoken with. They are told that they are urgent - now this is where it gets a bit confusing. Senior citizens in our Province are being told that when they call for requests for such things as windows to be repaired, where there is snow, wind and rain blowing in through their windows, or doors to be repaired, the same thing, but if their roofs are leaking then that is considered urgent. That is considered urgent repair. When they ask if that can be done immediately because they are urgent they are being told by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing: we can't deal with urgent now, we are only dealing with emergency. If I understand it right, Mr. Speaker, emergency means such things as electrical problems or heating problems such as stoves and furnaces.

Now we are down to the short straws. We are talking about when a senior citizen in this Province, sixty-five, seventy-five, as old as eighty-five-years-old, are calling in, still living in their own homes, still healthy enough to live in their own homes, are asking for a small bit of help to do their windows and doors and shingles on the roof, and they are being told that that is out. We are not going to deal with urgency this year. Now they have gone from dealing with urgency; they are only dealing with emergency. I think I have that clear. I hope the minister - maybe the chair of the committee who has dealt with this, and I did raise some questions in the Estimates Committee about this particular thing. In fact, seniors in this Province, low income families who need a small bit of help, not a lot - in a lot of cases it was to fix one or two windows, to maybe fix a door or maybe put some shingles on the roof. That is what their request was and they are being told: No, sorry, you are on an urgent list, not an emergency list.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the chairman was coming from when he was saying that he was delighted with the advancement and the progression we have been making when it comes to home repair in this Province. Let's face it, of all the people in this Province, the seniors - our parents and our grandparents who are still living in their own homes - deserve at least a bit of dignity to be able to say they want to stay in their own homes.

I am going to give you one case, and I certainly will not use the lady's name here tonight, although she said I could right ahead. A person in my own district, just to give you an example, a lady in my district called me and said her request was for two windows and a door, and for the shingles to be done on her roof. She went through the entire winter and, when an inspector visited from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and went through her home, she was told: Sorry ma'am, we are just dealing with emergencies, not urgencies.

Here was a lady living in her own home, widowed, asking for these simple repairs. She was told instead, when they looked at her bedroom and there were buckets throughout the house, and the wind and snow was blowing in through a window in her bedroom, she was told to bar up her bedroom and go to another room in the house.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you have to ask yourself if that is decency or dignity that we are dealing with here. The fact is, this person should be considered, in my mind, an emergency. That is an emergency. If you are going splitting hairs from urgency to emergency then those people will never be handled.

I would like for the minister, when he gets up to respond some time through the night, or the chairman, who is at all the meetings, in response to this, Mr. Speaker, that he would try to explain, not to me but to the seniors in our Province, why they are waiting two and three years, or in some cases longer, to get some basic repairs.

However you label it, Mr. Speaker, whether it is urgency or emergency, it is still basic repairs to their homes that they have raised large families in and now, Mr. Speaker, for the most part like many of us, most of their children have either left their home and certainly, in many cases, they have left the Province. There is nobody left to take care of them, but they are still healthy enough to live in their own homes. They are healthy enough to live in their own homes, and I think that should be a priority.

If the minister wants to add that to her long list of sixty-six or forty-seven or whatever numbers she has, yes, she should add it. They should be up on the top. They should certainly be in the top ten if not number one. Those are the types of things, small amounts of money that they are requesting, that seniors in our Province, who have paid the price of working and toiling in this Province for a long time, should be given the respect and the dignity they deserve by at least allowing them to live in their own homes for a small amount of money that they are usually requesting, and it is not usually a lot of money, I say to him, Mr. Speaker. It is usually small amounts of money. That particular program, I think, has to be addressed and brought up-to-date as quickly as possible.

I understand that the money allocation for this particular year was - although passed in the Budget, the amounts of money, and I know it is a three-year program and this is the third year of that program - the money was still slowly coming forward. Still, up until today - I do not know if it is even today; maybe the minister can update us on that - that actually that money is in circulation in the Budget for home repair to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I am not sure if it is; but even then, Mr. Speaker, with the backlog that we see with the home repair program in this Province, that is something, certainly, if we want to zone in on something specific in the Department of Municipal Affairs, in housing, that these people should be given some priority and that problem has to be addressed and brought up to speed quickly. Because if it was a three-year backlog as was reported, and I think it was, and, in fact, it is true that there were another 1,000 cases this year added to that three-year backlog, then we have some people in this Province in some desperate need; something as basic as living in their own homes comfortably.

That same lady, by the way, Mr. Speaker, was told, when the door was so bad in the front of the house, to put a sheet of plywood over her door and use the back door. Now, that was what was suggested. No fault to the inspector or anybody in housing; that is not their problem. They administer what they have. They deal with what they have. But to look to a senior citizen in this Province who is living alone and is trying to stay in her own home, you would think that would be a priority and something can be done to make sure that is speeded up.

I could go through many cases tonight. I am sure there are other people sitting in this House tonight who have had phone calls from their constituents, from seniors, and not only from seniors but also from low income families in this Province - and there are certainly a number of those - but they have had them. I know of colleagues on this side of the House who have told me their circumstances of senior citizens who have called them with this particular problem. That is one point I wanted to address tonight with respect to Municipal Affairs. It is something that has to be a priority and, yes, it should be on a list.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to mention, in dealing with Municipal Affairs again, is the Municipal Operating Grants. We have spoken, and I have spoken to the minister and officials from his department. I have spoken to the federation about this. This has been a long ongoing debate and sometimes misunderstood; but, I will tell you, for people who have been on councils - I know there are members of this House, some of my colleagues have been on councils throughout this Province - know how important the Municipal Operating Grant is to a small town. Never has it been so important as it is today. It is simply for this reason, Mr. Speaker. With the out-migration and the number of people who have left this Province - different numbers have been thrown around, but it is certainly in the area of 50,000 people in the last decade. I think we are safe enough to say that. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, besides the out-migration of the people who have left the Province, who have left Newfoundland and Labrador, there is also a statistic that does not show up all the time, and that is the number of people who have left rural Newfoundland and Labrador and moved to the bigger urban centres in the Province, even the bigger towns, as we should say, like Gander, Grand Falls and so on. But, certainly many have moved to St. John's, Corner Brook and the bigger centres. So, rural small-town Newfoundland has been hit twice as hard. I guess we can look at it like that; that people have left the Province and a lot of them came from rural Newfoundland; and, besides that, we had a lot of people leave rural Newfoundland and head into urban centres.

So, with respect to the Municipal Operating Grants, Mr. Speaker - and the minister knows this - that one of the parts of the calculations of the Municipal Operating Grants is population and certainly households. That is part of a complex, some people believe, a complex calculation of how you come up with the Municipal Operating Grant for a community. It was once explained to us, Mr. Speaker, by a member opposite. It was never really straightened out exactly how it works, but we do know for sure one thing: Municipal Operating Grants are certainly calculated, and one of aspects of that is the population and households and so on in the town.

With that in mind, here we are looking at small towns throughout this Province who have lost people to the mainland and also lost people to urban parts of this Province. They have had a decrease in population. Over and over, as we went to the provincial conferences this year for the municipalities, I have talked to numerous town clerks, mayors and councillors who all said the same thing. Although our population has declined and these people left somewhere and went either, like I said, to the mainland or to urban areas, towns around this Province still have the infrastructure that they have to maintain. That is where the problem lies. Although they are losing numbers, and some are holding on only losing small numbers while others are losing bigger populations, they still have to maintain their infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, what chance does a small town have in this Province, going through the tough time that it is going through today, if they do not maintain their infrastructure, if their water and sewer is going through a state of non-repair, if the roads going into their communities are dilapidated? In a lot of cases they are impassable, as some councillors have put it, deplorable. We can use all kinds of words. The bottom line is that small-town Newfoundland, small rural Newfoundland, although they are losing population, they still have to maintain their infrastructure.

With respect to the Municipal Operating Grants, I have talked to small towns. I will give you an example. The community of Pacquet in my district, they told me that in the last five years, or since 1995, I am sorry, 1995 and 1996 - and as I checked it out it seemed that it was the same for a lot of the communities - they lost approximately 50 per cent of their Municipal Operating Grants.

If I remember the numbers right, and it could be off by a few thousand here or there, that particular community was getting somewhere around $50,000 to $55,000 in Municipal Operating Grants. That might not sound like a lot to people in this House tonight, but to a small community, $50,000 or $55,000 means a difference of turning off another street light. Imagine being on a council, a volunteer council - they have actually done this, this is not a dramatization, this is councillors and I am sure we have all talked to them - who have actually walked around their community, the mayor and a couple of councillors took the time one night to walk around the community, and decide what street lights they would turn off that night. That has actually happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: All of them have done it. They turned off all the lights, maybe left one light on, I say to the hon. member, or maybe they turned them all off, but that certainly has happened in this Province. Councillors have had to walk around and decide where they were going to cut next. That is just one example of a street light being turned off. There are other examples. They have to go back through their budgets and they have to see where they can cut and cut and cut.

Then, Mr. Speaker, they are in this predicament. These are volunteer councils sitting there trying to keep their communities alive, sitting down knowing they have to ask for the taxes from their residents, but knowing at the same time they have to cut services. They are the ones on the front lines. They are the ones who take it first-hand. We take it the next step, when it comes to the minister or comes to their Member of the House of Assembly. The truth is, the volunteer councils around this Province are on the front lines, who deal with their taxpayers, the people who pay municipal taxes up front. They are the ones who have to go to their residents and say: Our Municipal Operating Grant has been cut.

Like in the community of Pacquet, as I just mentioned, around $50,000, and this year they are getting around $20,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, $30,000 to a community like Pacquet is a considerable amount of money.

I was in the district of the Minister of Fisheries, Twillingate, not long ago. Not on business, by the way, I say to the minister. Don't worry about it. It was on a personal matter with some children who were involved in a sports activity, my own children as a matter of fact. I was in the community for two days on this particular basketball tournament with some Grade 6 students. I was going throughout the town that day and I met and talked to some of the councillors, and I understand that their Municipal Operating Grant also was cut by some 50 per cent. As they went out throughout the community wondering what they could do about some streets that had potholes in them, like anywhere else, they were wondering what they could do; but they told me the same thing. Their Municipal Operating Grant was cut by some 50 per cent.

Now, that is a bigger community. Still, just on recollection - I could be corrected on this - I do know it was 50 per cent. I think it was something like $300,000 maybe, and they were down to $150,000, somewhere in those numbers; maybe $400,000 down to $200,000. Imagine taking that much money out of a council, saying that you are going to lose that much money. A lot of that calculates - I know not all of it but some of it calculates - from Municipal Operating Grants, certainly because of population and households and so on in your community.

Mr. Speaker, what I did one day here was compare it to the same philosophy that the government, the now government, uses when they talk to Ottawa. When they talk to Ottawa about transfer payments to this Province on equalization, they try to remind the federal government, like they should: Don't penalize us because we are losing people. Don't use that so much on your calculations when you talk about equalization and transfer payments to this Province. We have lost 60,000 people.

What I am asking the provincial government here in this Province is to look at the same concept that they use, the same arguments they use with our federal counterparts to get more transfer payments or more money for this Province to operate, that they would use that same philosophy when they talk to the councils around this Province.

I will clue up with this, Mr. Speaker. I understand my time is coming to an end. I do understand that right now the department, under the minister and the Federation of Municipalities, are working on a plan to address this problem. I hope they come to something, because I have discussed it with the minister and with his officials, with the Federation of Municipalities, on this very issue: that, in fact, small rural Newfoundland needs a break. They need a break. These small towns that have lost people are struggling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, just a minute to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the members for some time. I will clue up by saying this: I would hope that the department - I know that the minister is working with the Federation of Municipalities - that we keep this into account. When you are talking about small-town rural Newfoundland, they need a little break. Now, $20,000 or $25,000, if we did not take into account the population like a community like Pacquet lost, then they would be back up to the $40,000 to $50,000 in Municipal Operating Grants that they were receiving before the decline in population.

All we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we support the fact that a new formula, a new calculation, has to be made for the argument that, when small-town rural Newfoundland loses that population, they still should be receiving that Municipal Operating Grant that gives them a ray of hope and something to work with so that they can turn a street light back on or they can offer a service, the basic service that rural Newfoundland and Labrador needs so desperately.

So, I hope that in the coming weeks - I hope it is not too long, Mr. Speaker. I find sometimes we study things for too long. It is fine that it is being reviewed and I hope that there is a solution coming pretty soon, but for small-town rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they need a break, and one of the small breaks that this government can give is in the way of Municipal Operating Grants to tell them that we believe in what they are doing out there. We are going to support you. We understand you have lost population - this whole Province has - and this is one way we can reward you and say you are doing a great job out there. You are volunteers. Keep up the good work. I think that is a way of government saying to them, we still believe in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where we can help small-town Newfoundland and especially the councillors who stand on the front lines and take the abuse, in a lot of cases, for what happens in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to have a few words also on the concurrence debate here that we are dealing with. One of the departments happens to be the one that I administer, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and I would like to respond to some of the things from my critic, the Member for Baie Verte.

I will deal with the first part of it first, with the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the demand for the Provincial Home Repair Program outstrips the current demand. I just want to use this occasion to tell the people of the Province what happened last year for the Provincial Home Repair Program. There were, last year, $8,464,133 given to people in the Province whose household income was less than $17,000. Now that, Mr. Speaker, is the grant part of it. There was also a loan that a person could get, in addition to that. The forgivable loan for this part of it was $5,000 in the Island part of the Province and $6,500 in Labrador. The person could then borrow an additional $10,000 on the Island and $13,000 in Labrador.

To give you and idea, Mr. Speaker, of how many people we were able to help last year through the Provincial Home Repair Program: in the Avalon Region we were able to help 702 people; in Marystown 144; Goose Bay 111; Gander 487; in the Corner Brook office 379; Stephenville office 303; Grand Falls office 367. For a total of 2,493 people last year that availed of the Provincial Home Repair Program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Is it enough? The answer is no. We would like to have more. Again, we have to balance out all of the needs that we have and I am hoping - I want to say this too, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government has to be an integral part of this as well because we are, this year, entering the last part of our three-year program and without the federal government cost-sharing in a program like this, it makes it more difficult for the Province to be able to go it alone. So, I am looking forward to talking to my federal colleague. I am sure all the other provincial ministers are as well, with the hope of getting a new program so that this can extend into 2003-2004, and subsequent years as well.

On the municipal other part of it, Mr. Speaker, there are some very interesting points to be made. I do not have to say it for the people of the Province, they know it as well as I do. We live in a Province that has a total population of the City of Winnipeg, 500,000 people. In that, Mr. Speaker, there are 287 municipalities, 151 local service districts and 100 communities that are not incorporated. That is lot of administrative responsibilities in the Province where many, many small towns have councils and have administrations that they find difficult to administer.

I see a paradigm shift happening in the Province in that there are many, many communities now which will recognize that it would be better for them if they were to come together and do joint services, even in administration, and we are seeing it happen in many, many places. By coming together and having one administration for four or five or six communities, then they can streamline. They can then use the money that they would not have had to spend in duplication to extend the services to the people in the community. So I am encouraged by that. I think that is a very, very good sign. I look forward to working with these councils and the federation and seeing that that will continue.

There are other things too, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about the Municipal Operating Grant - and my critic opposite has already said that we do have a committee in place. In fact, it was one of the first things that I did when I went to the department. Coming from a small rural part of the Province myself and many of the smaller municipalities, I know the difficulty that they would have. If we look at the way the present Municipal Operating Grant is structured, it is like this: we have a few large towns and cities on the top, and we have the large bulk of our population at the bottom, but when it comes to the Municipal Operating Grant it is reversed. It comes this way, and that is one of the things that we recognize with the Federation of Municipalities. They are part of this group. NLAMA, the Newfoundland and Labrador administrators association is a part of this group and, of course, people from my own department who I hope will - and they are proceeding very, very well along the line that some time this fall, early this fall, we might be able to present to the federation and to the municipalities in this Province a new Municipal Operating Grant structure. We are also looking at legislation for the larger towns. Myself and the Minister of Justice met with the Northeast Avalon group. We are looking at giving the municipalities the right to ticket which they have been looking for, for years and so on. We are hoping to bring forth legislation to make that happen. So, these things are happening.

Also, Mr. Speaker, when you think about all of the municipalities that we have, one of the big problems that we have of course is infrastructure. When you have a lot of small communities with their own gravity water system then it takes a lot of dollars to be able to disinfect and chlorinate these systems. One of the things that government did - my predecessor, the hon. Minister of Finance, started a program with this government that we are continuing - was say to municipalities in the small areas where they are on a boil order, not only small municipalities but local service districts as well, that we, as a government, will provide the municipality with up to $100,000, 100 per cent funded by government, none by the municipality. Last year we budgeted $1.8 million for that program. We spent more than $8 million. This year the government has budgeted another $10 million. So, Mr. Speaker, we are meeting that need as well.

One of the other things that the hon. the Member for Baie Verte, my critic, talked about was being able to help the smaller municipalities and being able to use the same logic that we use as a Province to talk to the federal government to vote for more funding. That is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what we are doing in this Province with many of our small municipalities. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. The infrastructure program that we are dealing with, that we have already signed with the federal government on a one-third, one-third, one-third ratio; one-third federal, one-third provincial and one-third municipality. We, as a government, recognize that many of our small municipalities do not have the ability to pay for their one-third. We, as a government, introduced last year, for the first time, a variable rate. That variable rate allows the provincial government to pick up as much as 90 per cent of the small municipality.

Let me give you an example of what that means. We were talking about Municipal Operating Grants for a small town getting $20,000 a year in Municipal Operating Grants. Guess what? If they did one phase of water and sewer in the community and that phase worked out to be about $500,000, the provincial government would pick up 90 per cent of the sixty-six-and-two-thirds percent of the $500,000, which means that we, as a Province, would not only assume our third but we would assume 90 per cent of the other third of that small municipality, for a sum of $306,000. That would then leave the community to pick up the other $30,000. That, Mr. Speaker, is the way that we have been able to help many of the smaller municipalities. If you use the same calculation and you use the same math, well one phase of water and sewer would be the equivalent of using $20,000 a year in Municipal Operating Grant; fifteen years of operating grant on just one project alone. So yes, we recognize that there has been some decrease in the Municipal Operating Grant, but it is more than made up for in the area where we have put in this particular program, a variable program, a variable rate.

The other thing, too, Mr. Speaker, that people sometimes in the Province do not realize - we get the impression that people in the rural parts of the Province, in the smaller communities, do not pay their fair share when it comes to water and sewer. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we have municipalities out there, many of the small municipalities, paying $1 a day for water and sewer. That, I think, is a good buy when you look at it. When you look at half a litre of water, you go to any corner store and that half a litre of water would cost you about $1 or $1.22. For that $1.22 you can water your lawn, you can wash your car, you can have indoor plumbing, you can use your water for all sanitary reasons, for your cooking and whatever, for that particular $1 a day.

I also want to say that many of the people in the larger municipalities do not pay that much a year. I do not want the wrong impression to be out there, that, because the government in a sense is looking at a variable ratio and giving the smaller municipalities some of these dollars, we do it because they are first of all charging the minimum amount and, in addition to that, they do not have the commercial base whereby they are able to raise the revenue.

When we look at some of the larger communities around, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that these communities - like, for example, Clarenville, who only recently decided they wanted to become part of a multi-year Capital Works Program, and I talked about that a few moments ago - they depend on many of the outlying communities as well, and government recognizes that they do need infrastructure in those smaller communities. By doing that, they can then feed into the larger growth centres like the Clarenvilles and we can see growth happening, and they themselves come to work in the same community.

One of the other things that we did again this year, government did as a request also of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities and the larger towns. They wanted a multi-year Capital Works Program. These larger towns, by the way - these are fifty-cent dollars, and they recognize that. We have had some of the larger towns. For example, the Member for Cape St. Francis, his town, the Town of Torbay, availed of that. Then we had the Member for Topsail, the Town of Topsail, avail of it. Then also the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, in Carbonear itself. Then we had Grand Falls-Windsor take advantage of it, and Gander, and some of the other communities. The Member for Labrador West, Labrador City and Wabush, these people took advantage of this multi-year Capital Works Program because, what it does for them, it gives them flexibility that allows them, instead of coming back to government every year looking for money, it then gives them an opportunity over three years to be able to manage their resources, be able to call their tenders whenever they want, and be able to get the best dollars for the dollars that are being allocated. In some instances, like in Labrador West, I think the towns are looking at where they might joint tender and be able to do even better than that. That is the flexibility that the larger towns have been looking for, and we were able to work with them to make that happen.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have the regular Capital Works Program where we deal with many of the requests that come in from many of the municipalities that are there right across the Province.

We have, as I said, in the Province, and in dealing with the Member for Harbour Main in some of the communities that he has in his area that have the arsenic problem, we were able to work with them. One of the things that we were able to accomplish, I think, by working together with the different towns, rather than each town going on again and finding its own separate source of drinking water, we were looking at where we might be able to combine five or six towns into one source. One of the big problems that we have, and it is an extra burden also for many of the smaller towns, is, if we put in state-of-the-art disinfecting water programs for them, then in many cases they do not have the expertise in the smaller communities whereby they can then operate these state-of-the-art facilities that we, as a government, have installed for them.

Again, working with the Federation of Municipalities, we have said to them, and they agree with us, that they are looking at a program whereby we might be able to have one person on a region to look after three or four, or five or six, or six or seven, of these smaller municipalities and then, at the end of the day, that person will be properly trained and be able to administer all of these programs that we have.

These are good things that are happening, Mr. Speaker, right across the whole Province. I recognize that. One of the things that I recognize as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, many, many times being there, as many of my colleagues in the House have done, being a councillor for years and from a small town, you have an empathy for them and you recognize some of the things that they have to do. That is why I try to meet as many of them as I can and work with them in every opportunity, not being able to satisfy all of their needs but to be able to do as many of them as I possibly can.

As I said earlier, the Member for St. Barbe, last year as well as this year, in some of the communities in the area where they have major projects needed, we have worked with them and hopefully under the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure they can make it happen.

That is the whole process that we, as a government, want to work. We want to work with the stakeholders out there in the community. We want to work with the federation and we want to work with the administrators' association. We want to work with the cities and we want to work with the towns. I think, as I said earlier, a real paradigm shift is happening in the Province where people are co-operating, where people are looking to us, to government, and saying: Look we are ready for this and we want your help. We have really indicated that we are there to be able to help them in many of the things that we do. It is these types of programs, these types of commitments, that we are looking at, and not only in the large urban areas but in the small urban areas.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I was very, very pleased, and I have to reiterate and say it again, that we were able to get a multi-year Capital Works Program for our larger towns and cities. It enables, then, the smaller municipalities to avail of the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program, where we, as a Province, can take a large proportion of that share and be able to see that the people in many of these smaller municipalities will pay their way quite well in water and sewer and probably taxes and so on; avail of the opportunity for drinking water and for sewer that many of these communities do not have.

We have communities out there - I have them in my own district - that are not yet fully done with water and sewer. It is a large bill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when we look at it, if were to take every community in this Province and install water and sewer with a sewage disposal system that would meet the standard that is being set for us, it would probably cost about $3 billion to $4 billion. We do not have these types of dollars. So we work at it and try to meet all of the most important needs as we can; to work at it within the financial means that we, as a Province, have to be able to do things.

One of the other things that I did not mention when I talked about low income housing and so on is the fact that the Province and the federal government last year - along with all the other provinces and territories in the country, we are working with the federal government to have a program that is 50/50 cost-shared between the Province and the federal government, which for this particular Province would mean $30 million; where we should do some emergency repair to many of the major structural damages that we have to our unit in the large areas that are owned and operated by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, and be able to build new units.

Mr. Speaker, what we have found is that in many of the urban areas, the larger areas, the vacancy rate for low income housing is not there. That was one of the things that we were able to do, as a Province, to work with our Atlantic counterparts and say to the federal minister that we want the program modified so that we, in the Province, can take advantage of the situation that we think is best suited to fit our needs. We are hoping that within the next couple of weeks that this particular agreement can come to fruition so that later on this year we might be able to look at some of the (inaudible) that we have in the urban areas and be able to do some extra in the remote areas of the Province, like in the Labrador Coast where there is much needed housing, in Nain and in some of the other communities where we can, again, work with the people in that area and with the member to improve the housing and living conditions for people on the northern part of the coast.

Over the last three years a special initiative was done by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to do about $7 million worth of work on the Labrador Coast, and there is much more needed. Again, it shows, as a government, that our commitment is there to help those people who are on a low income and need our help. We are there to help them in whatever way we can with the limited resources that are available to us.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there are other people who will want to speak on that. I am glad to have had this opportunity to comment and to, basically, talk about where this particular department is and some of things that we are doing, working together with the municipalities and working together with the federal government. Again, one of the things that I would have to say is this, that it is very difficult for a small -

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LANGDON: I would like to take one minute to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the federal government has to recognize, and it is very difficult for the small jurisdictions of the country to be able to do - ours, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and even Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the Territories, is the federal government having one particular program which fits everybody across the country. That does not work. What we have been able to do as an Atlantic region, Mr. Speaker, is work together. My officials from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing have met periodically with the Atlantic region. We are working together to make sure that at the end of the day we have a program that we can access, but is also one that would benefit the people who live in this Province and be able to provide for them housing that they can afford and a decent housing that they so deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 even saw people clapping and cheering on the other side of the House, I might say, Mr. Speaker.

What I want to spend the first few minutes talking about is an issue of things I asked in the estimate committee, under this committee, in the House yesterday morning. We dealt with the Estimates Committee of Finance and the Public Service Commission. It has been raised to me on many occasions - and I am sure many members could identify with this. I have great concerns with the direction of the Public Service Commission that was set up to put the merit principle into hiring within the public service. I have spoken to people on many occasions where they have indicated that if they were not on the minister's list, they were told: if you are not on the minister's list you don't get a job. In fact, I have spoken to people - I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: if you're not on the government list. In fact, I have been told by people over the past several months in Central Newfoundland: if you didn't work on a political campaign you can't get a job out there; whether it is with Petroleum Pricing, whether it is with MCP or various government departments, or Works Services. I have been told that is one of the prerequisites for getting a job.

Mr. Speaker, I asked in the estimates yesterday, the Public Service Commission, why? When there are temporary hirings, they are picked and put into temporary position for so long. Then, when they advertise on a permanent basis, many people are given those jobs permanently because they are already in the position. I know of many instances, and my colleagues know of many instances. I have spoken with them on that particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, that doesn't do much for people who have outstanding qualifications, wondering why they did not get a job, because somebody was put in a temporary position and got the permanent position. I have been told by the Public Service Commission in Estimates that the Public Service Commission does not deal with temporary jobs. In fact, what this government has done is, this government has taken the hiring responsibilities, to a great extent, and it has been delegated to the line departments. Departments have removed - a lot of the hiring has been delegated. That is the response I have received. I was aware of it already. But, I asked the question and I was told that it shifted from the Public Service Commission. It does not lend much credibility in hiring people based on merit and qualifications, and it does not speak for a public service in the future that may be better equipped to do a specific job.

My colleague from Cape St. Francis mentioned in the Estimates Committee, he knows somebody who had twenty years experience and never got looked at, and someone who had no experience in that area at all, not even any qualifications in this particular area, got the job.

If we are going to develop a productive public service, one you can take pride in, one in which the morale is good in government - and I have been told that is one of the reasons for poor morale. There is a big concern with morale here in government. One of the reasons is, when they see people getting put in the positions who do not have the specific capability or they were hired on something other than merit, it causes a lot of problems. That is a very, very major concern.

That is an area under this committee, Government Services. I have raised it in Estimates, and I have asked questions of the Public Service Commission on some of these things. They acknowledge that it has been delegated to departments. They do not control temporary hirings. In fact, what they do on permanent hirings - permanent hirings are delegated to departments, and they do audit checks on hirings.

I asked what per cent of people get into temporary positions and then fill these permanently, and they could not give an answer on that. They could not provide that particular answer. Mr. Speaker, that is not good for building up morale in the public service.

I want to touch on another area of the Estimates Committee, too, and that is the area of finance. Finance is under this particular concurrent debate here today. We have looked at the Budget that was presented by the minister back in March.

MR. REID: You're finished with your propaganda.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I am finished with it for now. I asked these questions in Estimates, where they should be asked, and the answers, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I got were not answers that I wanted to hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, could I have protection from somebody who is speaking, not from his seat, and who is making it very difficult for me to be able to be able to carry on debate here in the House.

The minister announced in her Budget, a $93 million projected deficit. We have been told by very reputable financial institutions, the Bank of Montreal, for example, that is not the Budget; that is not the true Budget. A very reputable financial institution, the senior economist with that bank, says it is not a true deficit. We have said it here on Budget Day, Mr. Speaker. I have said it in this House on many occasion; both inside and outside of this House.

We have taken $97 million from the Labrador Transportation Initiative -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, this government has.

Put that on top of the $93 million and you have $190 million. Then take the $58.2 million from Hydro, take the money that they have taken in deferred revenues of $51.7 million, and we are up to $300 million already; and, the Bank of Montreal said $287 million and that does not include the accrual method accounting that would be shown. It could be much higher. It could be very much larger, they have indicated.

When you look at where we are heading, you might say that this government has always preached on our GDP. The GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is why we are leading this country in three of the past four years. What does it really mean? I will use an example. Let's look back to the early 1980s and let's look at the real indicators of Gross Domestic Product compared to personal disposable income. Back in the early 1980s, and I will just take1981 as an example, our GDP was at $8 billion; our personal disposable income was about $6.8 billion. Now, during the rest of the eighties, and we will take it up to 1990, and let's see what happened between personal disposable income and GDP. Up to 1990, our Gross Domestic Product went up to about $10.3 billion. Where did our personal disposable income go? It went up to about $8.5 billion. So it went all the way from about $6.7 billion or $6.8 billion right up to $8.5 billion. Personal disposable income went up. From 1989-1990 right up to this day, and that is a long while, about twelve or thirteen years, there has been no basic significant increase in personal disposable income. We are now up to 2000, I will take it up to the year 2000 and we will compare specific years. In the year 2000, our personal disposable income was in the vicinity of about $8.7 billion. It was about $8.5 billion back in 1990. In ten years we have not increased our personal disposable income. It was still at $8 billion.

What happened with GDP in that time? GDP went up rapidly. It went up very rapidly, Mr. Speaker. The GDP went from about $10.5 billion, up to almost $13 billion by 2000. The GDP just skyrocketed up; the personal disposable income did not go up.

What did that tell us? While the economy was growing, we were dealing with an export that was going out and creating opportunities elsewhere and it put no more money into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is what it is telling us. We have no more disposable income to buy the goods, to do the shopping, to buy cars, fridges, stoves, washers, to buy general clothing, those types of items. We were no better off. That is a very telling tale, I say, Mr. Speaker. That is a very telling tale, that we have not grown our economy here in our Province. We have not used our resources to benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They are primarily benefitting people in other parts of the United States, the Eastern Seaboard, and other parts of this county. That is not something we should be very proud of.

When you look at our provincial revenues - if growth is so great, it is so fantastic, let's look at this year's Budget they presented. When you look at the Budget, when you take away the Labrador Transportation Initiative, we would be taking in $57 million less this year in provincial revenues than last year, if they take away the Labrador Transportation Initiative. In other words, our economy is taking in less in provincial revenues in this fiscal year coming up than we did last year, if we did not rob the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I might say to the member shouting: Time is up! No, it is not up. In fact, their time is soon going to be up, I say. It was up for the riding of Gander and Grand Falls and it going to be up when they have the gumption to call an election to find out whose time is up, I say to them over there.

Income tax, for example, is going to go down from $612 to $611. We did not institute a tax increase. We are going to see a stagnation in income tax revenue. At least it increased when we reduced the income levels. It went up when we increased it. Mr. Speaker, we are not seeing the (inaudible). We would ensure that jobs on our resources, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, who is shouting out, we would not be letting jobs in Leatherhead, England, leaving them there, when we should be developing jobs here in this Province. This government would not stand up. They had to get the Mayor of St. John's to stand up and fight for jobs in engineering, and other jobs here in this Province, because this government did not do it. That is what we would do.

We are not going to create many jobs in this Province by sending ore to Sudbury and Thompson. We are going to create jobs and maintain jobs in Thompson with ore from Labrador. Ore from Labrador is going to feed the declining resources of ore in Thompson and in Sudbury, Ontario. Inco has said that. Inco is looking forward to getting our resources to feed their machines, their smelters and refineries in their own respected provinces of Manitoba and Ontario. That is not how you build an economy and create jobs. The more jobs we create here, the better paying jobs, the more provincial source of revenue we get in taxes, in sales tax, in personal income tax, in various other taxes, from licencing fees and automobile licences; even in sin taxes. You take in more taxes with more disposable income. These are areas we have to do to increase the economy. What are we doing? We are desperate. We are clutching at straws here now to try to feed the engine to try to drive this Province and keep us from getting farther in debt.

Getting into debt is another area I want to touch on, Mr. Speaker. Talking about debt, the debt of this Province back - and I did a little bit of research. In fact, back in 1972 we did not have a big amount of debt in this Province, I can tell you, or 1966. Now, right back into 1966 - and I looked at the debt in our Province over each of the respective years. Let's go back to 1989, as an example. Mr. Speaker, in 1989, the year the government changed, we had a total public sector debt then in the range of $5 billion. I think the next debt at the time was $4.8 billion.

Today we are looking at a significant increase in debt. Today, if you look at the public accounts, the consolidated accounts that are tabled in this House, produced by this government, given the figures taken right from this government's own records, our net debt was $7.434 billion in 1997. In 1998, at that time, $7.646 billion. Then it went to $7.8 billion in 1999; $8.08 billion in 2000; 2001, $8.43 billion. We have gone, in four years - not even counting this year, and we will get to that in a minute. In four years, not counting this past year, we increased the net debt from $7.43 billion to $8.43 billion; one extra billion. This year we are going to increase it by (inaudible) to what? Half a billion in one year. We are going to hit close to $9 billion in debt, from $7.3 billion just five years ago. That is a tremendous amount of debt we are putting on our Province.

We have increased the debt of our Province by 20 per cent in five years. The last five years - and the records I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, are not our research. It is not our records. It is the records of the government that are tabled in late November or early December each year; the public accounts and confirmed by the Auditor General on those figures. So that is not a very proud record for government to be boasting about. They try to tell us how things are so great, and then march in and tell us that this government has now given a green light to be able to go out and borrow cheaper. In other words, the only thing in borrowing -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am delighted to see cheaper borrowing, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. I am delighted to see it but my greatest fear, I might say, is that they might go right to town with the cheque book, Mr. Speaker. That is my greatest fear. Because we can borrow a bit cheaper now - they might take advantage of borrowing more because they can borrow cheaper. Every time we borrow we increase the interest on our debt. We increase the debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct. That is brilliant, I say to him. Can you tell us why the minister is looking for $200 million in a bill when she said $93 million? What are the cash reserves, I ask the minister? Where are the cash reserves, I want to say to the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, on the cash reserves. They are hiding things, Mr. Speaker, because they do not have the cash reserves to be able to do it and they have to borrow it. Why don't you have cash reserves? Because the money you are spending is greater than the money you are taking in, and it puts you in a more tentative position in terms of having it. That is why they do not have it. I can tell you the cash reserves are very scarce, Mr. Speaker, in the coffers of this government. That is why they want to get their hands on another cheque of $200 million without giving us any clear direction as to where it is. That is because there are things that they are hiding in this Budget that they have not told us.

Before the ink was dry on the Budget there was a public announcement by government telling us the deficit is not $93 million any more, it is $98 million now because of relocation of communities. It has now gone up all of a sudden right out of the sky. We found out in a matter of days that there was going to be a $5 million expenditure now. We did not know it when the Budget was brought down. Anybody around knows - and I know members in this House, and members represented these people in the House before. I have heard them speak and I have heard them in the public making statements that they were prepared to put the money to move people if they had total agreement on it. It is not the issue I am debating or commenting on at all, the relocation. I am stating government knew that they were going to need this money and did not budget for it. That is not an appropriate thing to do.

Talk about accountability; the most accountable government, the Premier states. Talk about the most accountable government, here in this House in March this government, while the House was sitting, did not bring to this House expenditures of money. On March 15 to March 27 this government signed special warrants totaling $48,256,800. This government issued special warrants on March 15, March 27, on numerous areas in this House without bringing it to the House for debate. They, outside the authority of this House, signed a special warrant that violated, contravened and broke the Financial Administration Act of our Province. The House was sitting, number one, and it had to be one where the public interests would be jeopardized or at stake if it was not issued. They are the conditions for issuing a special warrant. The House was sitting here. The very day the House sat, the very day we were here speaking in this House they were out signing special warrants and did not come to the House. To me that is not accountability. That is hiding and being deceitful in presenting to the people, and that is not proper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Covering up.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, covering up. Hiding expenses and we are not getting the real truth.

Why don't they stand up and tell the people of the Province our deficit is higher? Why isn't there a contingency reserve account this year? Because if a $30 million contingency reserve account gets approval - at least if a contingency reserve account was approved for $30 million, it gives the government authority to go out and utilize that. It surely did not happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? I will give them leave to finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, this government has not given us the truth on this. The reason they did not bring in a contingency reserve this year is because the Budget they gave us - number one, they know it is false at $93 million, put another $30 million on that and they are showing $123 million. They did not want to break the $100 million mark on the surface. Even though it is only cosmetic, we know, the people know, and government knows. So why the secret? Everybody in this Province knows that it is not a $93 million deficit this year, it is several hundred million dollars. The minister knows it. She admitted it just a couple of weeks after, that it has gone up by $5 million already she said; and tell me they did not know that Harbour Deep was coming down the pipe. She knew it and she should have put it in there. She should have known that this was going to be allocated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not the point. It was not budgeted. I say to the minister, it was not budgeted and it should have been budgeted. It should have been added in, that $5 million and put it at $98 million. I am saying, why was the contingency removed?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's time to clue up now.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will clue up in a few seconds, Mr. Speaker.

It was not put there because they wanted to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why.

Thank you.

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: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased this evening to stand and speak to many of the issues raised by the Member for Ferryland, and to actually give the facts and clarify a lot of misconceptions that the member has tried to put forward. I think it is very important, again, for the people of the Province to hear some of this, because the Estimates were not televised, so it is a very good opportunity to be able to bring forward the facts around the Public Service Commission.

The member opposite knew this but, of course, he never incorporates new information. What he does try to do is to continue to proliferate the misleading components of what he truly believes is accurate in his world. I would say that, first of all, with respect to the Public Service Commission, the Public Service Commission is a very effective organization and, as I said in the Estimates Committee the other day, these people work very hard. They are our senior directors and our seniors advisors and also managers within government. To make the illusion that these people are somehow not doing a good job and not functioning effectively, I think it is wrong to do that to those people who work so hard. To say that the morale is low and that they could be working in a better way than they currently are, I think, again, is not -

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I never interrupted the member one time, not once.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I will make it very brief and I will give the minister leave to finish.

I never said within the Public Service Commission. I said morale has been low in the public service because people are getting hired in jobs that they know have not been the most competent ones to take those jobs. That is the statement I made. I did not reflect on any personnel or people working, or their ability, within the Public Service Commission at all. I never made reference to that at all, and I want that clarified for the record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There never is a point of order when that member stands up.

I was referring, and the member opposite knows, to his commentary in front of my officials in the Estimates Committee, when he said that the Public Service Commission is not as effective as it could be, and making clearly the insinuations, because our Directors of Human Resources are now following the protocol, that they somehow are not doing the good job. I think it is important for the people of the Province to hear his views on our public service, because I think it speaks loudly to his own views, and I think people need to hear that.

The other thing I think is important, that I think the member opposite is really getting -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the debate.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite is confused about his recollection of lists of people.

MR. MATTHEWS: You are definitely not omnipresent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, I think the Member for Ferryland may be confused about using ministers' lists. Perhaps it goes back to the days when the Tories had ministers' lists. I can say very clearly, the Public Service Commission does not function with ministers' lists because there are no ministers' lists. All they want to do is cast aspersions that our public service is somehow not using the proper protocol to choose the appropriate people for jobs.

He spoke about, again, and he was corrected in the Estimates Committee, about temporary employees. He was told, this year the Public Service Commission put in place a protocol for people who were working six months and longer, that they would have to go through the same merit principle as everybody else, and this was a new addition to address issues around temporary employees. It is a very important component, one that was highly recommended and one that the Public Service Commission is implementing and that we are very proud of.

I want to say that this unfounded allegation about the Public Service Commission and the hiring and use of political influence, and hiring through the Public Service Commission, and through the department, is totally unfounded. It probably speaks to a day when someone talked about Charlie's Angels or something before my time. I do not know anything about it, but I can tell you, there are not any ministers' lists that I can speak to. It is just fabrication. We have a good public service, we have a very confident public service, and all of this was explained clearly by my officials, as well as by myself, in the Estimates Committee for almost three hours, or about two-and-a-half hours I think the meetings went the other morning.

I do say that one of the things that bothered me the most the other morning, and we debated it a fair bit, is that it shows by the member opposite a lack of confidence in those people; the Human Resources directors, the Public Service Commission. I would say, no wonder the morale is bad, if that is the view that members opposite have of our public servants in the Public Service Commission. No wonder. I would say it is difficult enough these days.

MR. SULLIVAN: You're hand-picking (inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would say to the Member for Ferryland that we are not hand-picking people. We are following - and it speaks again to his lack of confidence in our public service and the Public Service Commission. It does not happen. It perhaps happened, or maybe he is fabricating it. It is not happening, and he knows the difference. Again, I stand in support of our Public Service Commission..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I also want to speak today, importantly, on our GDP. It was raised again today. The GDP measures the strength of our economy. Nobody can deny that our economy has been strong. These are not our numbers. These are not our creations. These are statistics that are put forward by the financial agencies and Statistics Canada and other rating agencies. These are not our statistics. But, put the statistics aside. Let's talk about what it really means: the strength of your economy measured in jobs. That is the important thing to talk about.

Disposable income will rise because this government has put forward the largest general economic increase for our public sector than it has had in the last number of years. Obviously, these people will spend the money. We are seeing it right now. We are seeing it in housing starts, up by 22 per cent. We are seeing it in confidence in retail sales, in our personal income tax. The members opposite know it and it is killing them, because it is there. They are not our numbers; they are numbers put forward by financial agencies.

Now, let's talk about jobs. They would love to give the impression that there are no jobs out there and things are falling by the wayside. In fact, that is not accurate either. Strangely enough, another inaccuracy. Let's talk about the jobs that have been created. Let's talk about the people working in our Province, because there are more people working than ever before in the history of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would also like to say that we have worked very hard and competitively to try to attract businesses and jobs to this Province successfully with respect to our call centre industry in Corner Brook, in Carbonear and Harbour Grace, and St. John's. Interestingly enough, we never heard from the members opposite when almost 1,100 jobs were created here in Convergys. But if 1,100 jobs were lost, we would certainly hear about it. It is very clear that they cannot handle anything positive happening because it goes against their own agenda, they are so politically desperate at this point to get re-elected in a position of power.

The number of jobs is important because that is how we really measure the strength of what is happening. We also know that the employment levels have increased. Unemployment has decreased, and what we have seen most importantly is that more people are actually out looking for work than ever before because there is hope and because they know that they are more likely to find work than they were before.

Let's talk also about work in rural areas. Let's talk about people working in places like Fogo Island where they are having difficulty getting the workers to actually go there. There is job employment. Is there in every community? No, Mr. Speaker, and nobody is saying that, but we have made a very clear decision that we would focus on growth centres, on regional centres, and replace the jobs that have been lost, create and diversify our economy, and that has been our mandate. I think the record speaks for itself.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk about the Budget, about striking the balance. Interestingly enough, when the Member for Ferryland was speaking, one of my colleagues said: What is your solution here? What is your solution? Because we have never heard even an iota of a solution here. Nothing only what is going wrong. Never a solution as to how things may improve. What did this Budget achieve this year? What we did was, this year we again looked at a way to minimize the impact on people. We looked at borrowing, obviously, with a deficit of $93.3 million. We looked at raising taxes minimally on, what we would say, pleasure items like cigarettes, and the dividend tax which will affect higher income earners. We believed that would create less stress on people and be a fairer way of doing it by integrating the kinds of measures that should have happened when we moved away from the federal taxation system.

We have maintained the integrity of the workforce. Could we have balanced the Budget? Yes, we could have, and we said very clearly by doing that we would destroy the integrity of our workforce in the Province, and we have worked too hard to build on that, to make sure people are ready to work, and we did not want to do it. We made that conscious decision and we stand by it.

I also think it is interesting, when you look at borrowing, one of my colleagues just handed me some Budget highlights from 1988. History is always important, because we learn from history.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) campaigning for the PCs then.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Perhaps you were campaigning for the Tories then, I would say to the Member for Ferryland, because they had to borrow that year. They had a deficit of $502 million. So, you know, maybe he was campaigning because I can also say, Mr. Speaker: What are their solutions? I can tell you their solutions. I have them right here: money for paving, more money for paving. In fact, we are up to sixty demands for more money directly or indirectly since we have been in the House the last four weeks. Every day more money, more money, more. What would the deficit be if they were here? I shudder to think about it, if they spent a quarter of what they are asking for on absolutely everything that was here.

I can honestly say that in the list that I have been keeping, every day there have been more requests for money spent in districts: paving roads, paving roads, more paving roads, more equipment, more shrimp licencing, again more work on roads, more schools, and the list goes on and on and on. That is what they would do, Mr. Speaker, and they complain about the deficit. They have come from a history of huge deficits. They have come from a history of where our pensions plans were in total disarray.

I have to give credit where credit is due, because it was Premier Peckford who actually created the pension fund so that money was able to be put aside to be paid specifically for pensions. But, it was never, ever, enough to cover off the unfunded liability of our pensions, and it was a Liberal Administration who finally started putting money into a dedicated pension plan so that the public servants of our Province would have a pension when they retired. I think that is an important piece to what this Administration has been doing, because this is one of the reasons we received the first upgrade, when we did receive it, from Standard and Poor's. It was because we had begun to address the pension unfunded liability to the point that this year our Public Service Pension Plan is at 50 per cent funding. It is the highest it has been and it gives a new sense of security to our public servants in knowing that when they retire they will have a pension for them.

Our teachers' pension plan, that nearly was defunct a couple of years ago, also received significant injections, $116 million, so that these pension plans would be there for teachers and for our public servants. It speaks to one of the reasons why we have received a credit upgrade, because of those kinds of initiatives that we have undertaken. Again, we made the commitment to put the money into the pension plans so that they would be there for the future.

I am also interested to hear that the Member for Ferryland is actually delighted to see the ability for cheaper borrowing. The member also knows, he is constantly misleading people when he says that we are going borrowing money willy-nilly. He knows the difference of that. The loan bill which is before this House is not about borrowing for anything other than the $93.3 million deficit. Why do we have this bill before the House? Because this bill has been before the House since Frank Moores brought it in, every single year. It is a bill -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, I would say to the Member for Ferryland, that is not a good reason but the real good reason for doing it is because, with an improved credit rating and the fact that some of our borrowings occurred with an interest rate of 14 per cent and 15 per cent, we can now go to the markets when our debt retires, because we borrow so much -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would say to the Member for Ferryland, I listened attentively to every word and he has not stopped talking since I have been up here, not for two seconds.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, if I could, this loan bill is very important and there is misleading information out there about what this is about and the member knows the difference. He is confusing it like he did the other day in Question Period. He is confusing it. He is still speaking, Mr. Speaker, and he will not give me the courtesy of doing my address. I listened to him and I would ask - because this very important.

The loan bill is permission for the government to borrow. Members know that when we are looking at our debt, debt retires at different points, we are able to go to the bond markets and borrow. With an improved credit rating, we are able to borrow the money to pay down the debt as it expires. We do this normally every year; it is done on the advice of my deputy minister and officials from the Department of Finance. It is something that we have been doing for years, through numerous administrations, and he stands there and tries to confuse the Financial Administration Act with this act. This is not a permission to spend, this is a permission to borrow, and the member opposite knows that. We cannot spend the money without the permission of this Legislature or through special warrants.

Special warrants are covered under a different act, under the Financial Administration Act. I would say to the member opposite that it is important to note, and I would say to the people of the Province, and I ask them - he knows. When he said that we have violated the Financial Administration Act by bringing special warrants to the House, that is false. It is inaccurate and he knows the difference. He does know the difference, but he continues to put out inaccurate information to mislead the people of the Province on the Financial Administration Act, because he knows the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister made statements there that were inaccurate. She impugned motives by indicating that I know. She cannot do that, impugn motives. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, she also indicated that what I stated on special warrants was wrong and I misled, which I did not. Special warrants should not be issued when the House is sitting. They should be brought to the House and they should be a matter that is urgent where public harm would occur if they were not issued, basically. That is stating the Financial Administration Act. The minister knows that. She knows she violated the act and she is trying to spin it now to give the impression that I am misleading people on this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I speak on a point of order because he just said I knowingly broke the Financial Administration Act, and that is inaccurate. I did not do it, and he knows the difference because what I am doing is totally included in the Financial Administration Act. I refer him to the subsection that points out when special warrants are used, and if they are an extension of an existing vote they are totally in order. In, fact, Mr. Speaker, what we did was done in a timely manner and I would say again to the people of the Province, and ask him the question: Is it necessary to spend money on health care, in buying new educational books for this Province and putting it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is the issue, I say to the member who continues to interrupt. It is the issue, and I ask for your ruling on his no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is speaking to the point of order? The hon. minister raised a point of order?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am not finished because I have been interrupted so often.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I appreciate the Member for Kilbride who recognizes the number of interruptions I have had and the time I need to finish because it is important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much.

I would say again, that it is important to note for the people of the Province that this ability to use special warrants for things like health and community services - $34 million for equipment and services in health and education. I would say to the members opposite and to the people of the Province listening, every single day in this House someone will stand up there and ask for more money, directly or indirectly, for health and education almost without exception. We make the decision to spend the money in this House of Assembly on health and education and they stand up and criticize us because we are using the ability within the special warrants to find the money for health and education.

I would say again to the member opposite, there is a complete difference - and I know the member opposite knows it. If he doesn't, I would be happy to go over it with him. I would even arrange a meeting with officials to explain to him the difference between supplementary supply, special warrants and the loan bill because, Mr. Speaker, one is the ability to borrow, which we do on a regular basis to retire debt as it expires. Surely, the member opposite is not going to say to us do not go out and borrow at 6.5 per cent when you have previously borrowed in the 1980s at 15 per cent and 14 per cent, because it is not in the best interest of the Province. If it is, God help us. It must be another version of voodoo economics that we have to steer clear of.

I can say again with respect to the special warrants, because this is important, the special warrants brought forward in this House and tabled are firstly, totally in order, totally under the Financial Administration Act, and in no way violates the Financial Administration Act. Members know that because we are spending this money in areas that already have a vote in the House, in the subsection under the Financial Administration Act. This is totally acceptable. In Works, Services and Transportation for extra fuel costs we spent $2.5 million in a special warrant; Health and Community Services, $34.7 million. I would say to the people of the Province: Do they think that was a necessary expenditure? Do they think it is important to provide additional funds for health care facilities, for occupational health reclassifications, and for the drug programs for our seniors and for our social assistance recipients? Will the people of the Province see that as a necessary item to spend money on? The members opposite do not, obviously, because they do not agree with it. But, speaking out of both sides of your mouth, they will stand up tomorrow in Question Period or in a petition and ask for more money for an MRI, like they did today. It is important for the people to hear this because this is the sort of thing that is happening in this House.

Also, in education, would the people judge whether it was important this year to spend $10 million on ordering new school books for our schools? Is that an important expenditure, I ask the people of the Province? Also, for our policing, an extra $3 million. Is this an important expenditure, I ask to the member and I ask to the people of the Province? We, on this side of the House, believe that our choice of expenditures for special warrants in health, education, and justice were right. They are about striking the balance. We stand by them and we know that the people of the Province also stand by that and will not be misled by members opposite when they say that we are violating the Financial Administration Act or out borrowing for slush funds. If this is a slush fund, I say to the people of the Province, you make the choice on whether this type of expenditure in health, education and drug programs are what they call slush funds, because they are not in our definition of slush funds.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Not bad, not bad.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise as a member of the Government Services Estimates Committee to make a few brief remarks. I am not going to hog all the time because I know we are getting close to where the three hours is up. I want to ask before we start - I know there is another member of the committee who would like to have a few minutes to speak to it and I hope hon. members will agree in providing leave so that the last two members - I am not saying to the Minister of Finance that - I mean we gave you whatever time you required, no one wanted to interrupt with that. All I am asking for is that members of the committee, in cluing up the Estimates Committee Concurrence Debate on Government Services and Lands, that we have the opportunity to do so.

Before I get into what I want to speak about tonight it is important - my colleague from Ferryland talked about the breaches and breaking of the Financial Administration Act. The fact of the matter is that he is exactly right, and the independent person of this House who judges that is the Auditor General of the Province. The Minister of Finance, in her time, said that she would like to provide and make any of her officials available to us to tell us the definition or the difference between Interim Supply and Committee of Supply or supply piece of legislation, fair enough, but at the same time she may want to ask her officials what the Auditor General said in her last report. She said clearly, that this Administration broke the Financial Administration Act. That is what they said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now that is not an opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Ferryland conjured up this afternoon so he could participate in this debate. That is an opinion that was registered by the Auditor General of this Province who reports directly to the House of Assembly. That is what the Member for Ferryland was basing his remarks on; on a statement of fact.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about GDP for a minute because we did ask some questions on it. My colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, just passed over to me the exact reference. I can have it here for reference for any member who would like to have a look at it. The last Auditor General's Report, section 3.(5), Non-Compliance with the Financial Administration Act. It is just a reference point to demonstrate clearly that the Minister of Finance is attempting to downplay, to spin around, or to redirect the fundamental and accurate statements made by the Member for Ferryland. Here it is, the Report of the Auditor General. That is clear for anybody in this Province to see.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about GDP for a second because it was, I guess, one of the thrusts of Question Period today. It is interesting. Since 1996 I have sat in this House as an elected member and I have seen this government with Premier Brian Tobin, Premier Beaton Tulk, Premier Roger Grimes, every Finance Minister at that time, talk about Gross Domestic Product and how we are leading the nation, and how we are leading the country. Today was the first time I heard him talk about: Well, GDP isn't important, jobs are what is important. The first time.

I want to talk about it, Mr. Speaker, because when people in the Province hear what GDP is all about - honestly, the questions that I get about it: I mean, what does it really mean to people? Historically, the bible I suppose of economics, Adam Smith's book, The Wealth of Nations - at the end of the eighteen century, ever since that time, to put it in prospective, economists and policy-makers have been seeking and designing different measures, different ways, of trying to track economic growth; trying to come up with a way on a quarterly, semi-annually, annually basis, that would demonstrate how a certain society is doing or how an economy in a region is doing. Gross Domestic Product in recent years, particularly in western countries like Canada, the United States, industrialized countries like Germany, France, England, have been using Gross Domestic Product as a way to track the amount of wealth created, because that is all it is talking about. Gross Domestic Product means simply this: How much wealth are we creating in this Province or in any country? Our debate in this House is about what it means to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It tracks only how much wealth is created.

Now for places like, for example, the United States, which has a population of some 260 million people - huge internal markets, primarily an import country - Gross Domestic Product is an accurate measure, it could be argued. Many economists would probably agree with this statement, but Gross Domestic Product in speaking about a huge internal market like the United States, huge internal market like Japan, would be an accurate reflection or way to measure how their people are doing economically. Are disposable incomes rising as a result of it, how they are doing, for example, in resource driven industries, value-added industries, for example, and in other sectors of the economy.

But, Mr. Speaker, the same cannot be said if we want to get a true picture, a real - and I want to emphasize the point here tonight, a real - picture of how the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador is doing, then Gross Domestic Product is not the best economic measure or tool to use. It definitely is not.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Government Services and Lands can sit down. I would like to sit down after I am finished and hear him explain to me how a rich society, 260 million people in the United States, a huge internal market that does not depend on export to create jobs, import primarily what they need, that Gross Domestic Product is an accurate measure of how they are doing economically; but, if he wants to stand us tell us, when I am finished, if he wants to stand and refute anything that I am saying, I will be glad to sit down and listen to him. I am always open to learn something new, to be corrected if I need to be corrected, and I can consider myself a big enough person to say thank you. But, I want to finish, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is not.

Mr. Speaker, most of this information I am about to relate to you today comes from government's own economics division. It comes from the government that you run, Minister. These are not my opinions.

For large economies, Gross Domestic Product is a real and accurate measure. Mr. Speaker, for small economies, for small regional economies like Newfoundland and Labrador, we are dependent, almost totally, on export markets characterized - and we are - by a huge degree and high degree of foreign ownership and control. GDP can give a misleading picture.

It must be said from the outset, to have Gross Domestic Product increasing is, unto itself, a good thing. I am not saying it is not. It is a good thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to inform the House that the time for debate has ended; 8:24 p.m.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave to conclude?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate the opportunity, I say to the Government House Leader. It will not take long.

I want to re-emphasize the point. To have the Gross Domestic Product increasing in the Province is not unto itself a bad thing. It is a positive thing. I want to emphasize that. The questions today and the points that we have made on this particular subject deal with: What does it truly say, though? What is it really about? How does that translate? How is it that, in leading the nation over the last five or six consecutive years on Gross Domestic Product, how does that translate down to, Premier, for example, where you were on Friday night in the District of Baie Verte, speaking there? How does that translate to the people of that part of our Province, to that region of the economy? How does leading the nation on Gross Domestic Product, for example, translate to the people who live on the Southwest Coast? What does it tangibly, realistically, mean to a person who lives in this Province, in their everyday life, in their everyday circumstance? That is what we need truly to understand.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I make the assertion and make the argument today, and will continue to make it, is that Gross Domestic Product does present somewhat of a misleading picture; because what it only does - and this is the only measure - all it does is, it takes all of the things that we are generating, all of the wealth that we have created, and measures that against what we did last year, what we did the year before, what we did the year before that, what we did five years ago or a decade ago. What it fails to take into consideration, and what it does not take into consideration, an economist who works with Vital Statistics in your own government, in this government, whether they are economists who work at Memorial University or the London School of Economics or at McMaster University or at the co-op program that exists in Simon Fraser in British Columbia, all of them will tell you this: It does not take into account how that wealth is distributed. It does not take into account how that wealth is disbursed. For example, the last five years in this Province, GDP has grown significantly because of our increase in production of oil and gas.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not bad. The Minister of Fisheries is singing out saying that is bad. I said earlier, no, that is not a bad thing. What I did say is that it could be misleading. To have Gross Domestic Product increasing is, unto itself a positive thing. That is what I said.

Mr. Speaker, it has been driven primarily by two factors: 75 per cent to 80 per cent of it has been driven by Hibernia moving into production, Terra Nova moving into production. Right off the bat, every barrel of oil that is pumped from either Hibernia or Terra Nova has an assigned value. Every tanker that leaves here that drives to or floats to the marketplace on the Eastern Seaboard in New York harbour that sells, as a commodity -

MR. SULLIVAN: Quantity times price.

MR. E. BYRNE: Quantity times price, simple, but as a commodity traded every day in the fluctuations of the marketplace, when that is sold in the New York- Eastern Seaboard marketplace, it contributes to our GDP. How much of that wealth is going to various regions of the Province? Not a lot.

The second biggest factor that has driven GDP, which accounts for about 20 per cent of the growth that we have experienced, is the resurgence of the shellfish industry, primarily crab; shrimp/crab, but primarily crab. No one can argue that Gross Domestic Product and our GDP growth has been assigned and associated almost exclusively with production on Hibernia and Terra Nova.

Now, here is the other thing that is interesting about Gross Domestic Product, that someone and everyone gets lost in the picture of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am about to clue up, I say to the Premier. Just a couple of more minutes. I am going to clue up.

Gross Domestic Product is also measured in what they call per capita. That means that the wealth that we are creating, the wealth that we have created, is divided against the state of our population. That is a factor in how it is designed. It is a factor in how it is determined. So, when we look at 50,000 people who have left in the last five years, if there was no oil being pumped, if we had zero growth, in other words if we remained stagnant for the last five or six years, our GDP would have increased because of one fact per capita, for one reason: because 50,000 people left. So, it is important to understand that.

The last point I will make is this: In Question Period today - we used to do it. Other economies do it. The Republic of Ireland, for example, do this: In their social contract that they came up with and designed with the - I think there are five major unions in Ireland that were part of that social contract - their IDA division, which is their Industrial Development Agency or Industrial Agency that was signed, they do not use Gross Domestic Product any more. I know the Premier has been there on trade missions. He would understand this. They use what they call Gross National Product. It is what I call today, gross provincial product. We used to measure it, because it is a more accurate measure of how we are doing as a society. All of that wealth that leaves from oil and gas is taken out of the equation and attract region by region - if we were to do it, it is not a huge task. It is not something that is going to break the bank. It is a matter of direction, that this government could instruct the Department of Finance to do this on an annual basis: growth provincial product.

If they did it, it would take in such factors as all the wealth created by offshore oil and gas that we lose in revenues and royalties and corporate profits that leave, that fly out of here, that benefit nobody here, are deducted all from that equation. What we are left with, if we use that economic lever, and that economic tool, is a true reflection and a real image of what actually is taking place in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, that is what this government should be doing. This is what people want. They want the true picture. People in this Province can handle the truth. The fact of the matter is that, when we stand up and talk about how great our Gross Domestic Product is, for over 50,000 people and maybe close to 100,000 who live in the Province today, it means absolutely nothing to them in their everyday life and their everyday circumstance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

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; 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 the 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; Mr. Mercer; Ms Hodder; Mr. Anderson; Ms Jones; Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Sullivan; Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Manning; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Young; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-three ayes, fifteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Order 3, the Estimates Committee, the committee on government social services.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3, the Concurrence Motion on social services and government.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to rise and speak to the business of the Social Services Committee. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, this was an exciting committee, lots of interest, lots of questions, and overwhelming responses, I might add, coming from all the departments that were involved.

The Social Services Committee had the pleasure of entertaining the Estimates for the Department of Education; Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; Human Resources and Employment; Labour; Health and Community Services; and Justice. I do not need to stand in this House and reiterate the tremendous progress that has been made on the fronts, in all of those departments, but especially in education and health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: The Estimates Committee themselves, Mr. Speaker, which normally would run you into about three hours of debate and discussion, took on a whole atmosphere of its own as we got into the great business that government is doing within each of these departments. We found ourselves deliberating sometimes for up to five and five-and-a-half hours on the estimates of each of these departments because of the new programs implemented, new initiatives that have been undertaken by this government and by those departments. There was a need to have this discussion, to get the information out there. I have to say that all the ministers who participated provided very valuable, very factual, very accurate and detailed information to all the questions that were asked. I might add that in cases where the information was not readily available, the ministers and officials in respective departments certainly undertook their responsibilities very seriously, provided the information in very short notice, and therefore no committee member was lacking in terms of a response.

I certainly want to highlight some of the things that came out of these consultations, especially in the area of health care, because I think it is important to recognize the transition that has been happening in the health care sector, not only in our Province, but all across the country, Mr. Speaker. It was very evident, as we debated the estimates for this particular department, and soon realized that our commitments, as a government, were escalating year-over-year in terms of investment in health care.

I think this year we are spending something like forty-five cents of every dollar within government on health and community services, which is a tremendous investment to be able to make into this particular sector that has been given such high priority in our Province. I think the entire budget for that department has escalated something near - as George would say, approximately - $1.5 billion this year, which is a very high amount of money that has been proposed to be voted for this particular department. It certainly speaks well of our commitment to the health care sector and to ensuring that people have good health care that is free in their communities, in their regions, that is accessible to them, no matter where they live. I think that we continue to be very creative in how we do this, in how we deliver this care.

The minister in the estimates talked about the presentation that was made to the commissioner, Roy Romanow, on what our view, as a government, is in terms of the future health care in Canada. They visited the Province; they held the consultations. Of course, we made a very detailed submission to them and obviously, as a Province, we wanted to outline what our future plans were for health care within our own Province and also to make suggestions on where we think they should be going in the future. We have certainly highlighted and, in particular, asked them to focus on wellness and primary care reform.

In the last year the Department of Health and Community Services held consultations or forums throughout the entire Province where they talked to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in their regions about health care services and what they felt needed to be changed and how the services could be improved upon. We certainly took all of the information that we gathered from those consultations and used them in our thought and in our presentation to the Romanow Commission on where we think they should be going in the country, especially as it relates to our own Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we realize the transitions that are taking place in health care is not singular to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue that is being addressed all across the country and it is an issue of grave concern, obviously, to all Canadians. We firmly believe, and continue to believe, and lobby the federal government on having greater investments in the health care sector right across the country. We certainly feel that our investments, as a Province, are at a level in which we feel we can maintain and that we can afford. When you look at spending forty-five cents of every dollar in the area of health and community services, it certainly shows the tremendous contribution that we are willing to make to what we see as one of the top priorities in the Province today.

In addition to that, Madam Speaker, there have been a number of other initiatives undertaken within the Department of Health. I think you will realize that since 1996 there has been over $500 million that has been committed within this Province for health related capital projects and equipment. Those things have gone to help build new hospitals in all different regions of our Province and to, as we all know, build a new children's hospital right here in St. John's for all the children of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have had the opportunity to visit the facility for my own interest, to tour it, but also to be there to see the level of care that children are receiving, and some of those children from my own district unfortunately, who have had to be admitted there. I can tell you that it was a smart investment and it was a wise investment. It was certainly done to be able to provide the best possible service that we could to the children of our Province. I tell you, it was a good feeling to walk in there and see the atmosphere that they have created, because many of these children are very sick and they need to have a little bit of their surroundings in order to cheer them up sometimes and help them feel a little bit better. That atmosphere has certainly been created there.

In addition to that, there have been a number of new health facilities that have been built around the Province in particular districts, some that are still ongoing. There have been renovations to many existing facilities and equipment has been purchased for many of these hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, as well, the Department of Health certainly highlighted and pointed out to us the increased importance that this government has been placing on home support workers and the fact that, again this year, they were able to provide a 4 per cent increase to home support workers. This is the second year in a row that we have been able to do that. We certainly want to emphasize the value that we place on the work that these people do. We also realize that, although we have been able to do that, we also realize that there are a number of people out there in our Province who still require home support services and still want to have the ability to live in their own homes and be cared for in their own homes. That is a challenge, I think, for all of us, for us as government and for families who are involved, to be able to reach a point where we can be accommodating to all the people who need this particular service. Certainly, that is a process and one that we are gradually working through in terms of being able to prioritize people, being able to distribute hours in a way that meets the greatest needs of individuals out there in our communities.

I have cases myself, in my own district, where I have people who require home support services and do not always have the income to be able to afford it on their own, and are dependent upon the Department of Health and that particular service in order to ensure that their loved ones are cared for and that they have the kind of care that they desire.

Mr. Speaker, another issue that we certainly talked about was the Wellness Strategy which has included the expansion of breast and cervical cancer screening programs throughout the Province, and we have seen this in a number of regions. It has been a wonderful investment. It has allowed a lot of women to be able to access this service in a more timely manner and, in some cases, the accessibility was an issue that we have been able to alleviate to a certain degree. This is an area which will continue to do more work, make more investments, because it is very important.

I also wanted to highlight the fact that under the Department of Health budget this year we were able to also increase the number of participants to be admitted into the nursing studies program. We created placements for an extra thirty-two nurses, which was a very important issue for the nurses' union. I remember back last year, a budget a year ago, when they had come to us with this issue. It was very important; they wanted to get more nurses into schools so they could train more people, have more of a pool to draw from in terms of being able to service what the need is within the Province. Although it could not be accommodated a year ago, I am very pleased to see that government was able to accommodate it this year in this particular budget because it is important. If we want to have nurses who are going to work in our communities and in our Province, we need to ensure that the availability of training is there for them, that they can access the programs. Certainly it is another step towards trying to address the recruitment and retention issue that we presently face in a number of regions around the Province as it relates to nursing care. That will certainly make a difference to us as we proceed this year.

Madam Speaker, I also want to certainly outline the tremendous commitments that have been made through the Department of Health and through this government in terms of the Early Childhood Education program and care for early childhood programs, because we have just launched the first ever Child Advocate office within the Province. This is a great day for children in our Province, when that happened. It was something that people had been asking for, for quite a long time, and I am pleased to see that we were able to do that. That office will be open and in place in September of this year, so we will be able to move forward with that, allowing children in our Province to have that type of advocacy.

Also, Madam Speaker, we were able to bring in a five-year strategy for early childhood development within our Province, and these programs will allow children in all different regions to be able to partake in a number of different programs, as well as their parents. A very important component, an investment of over $36 million in five years, in which we will be able to put family resource centers in a number of regions around the Province.

What is very unique about this is that a lot of the areas where these resource centres are being placed are in some of the most rural areas of our Province in which they do not have child care programs or other early development programs to provide that kind of early intervention. This will certainly allow us to be able to do that on a different level, and it has no doubt been a successful program.

Again, it was done in consultation with a number of groups across the Province. I think there were over 100 groups represented at the original consultations for this particular program, which has certainly allowed us to get good input from all the groups out there and therefore be able to develop legislation around it, and a five-year plan around it, that will certainly be able to meet the needs.

Health care, no doubt, had taken up a lot of our time in the Social Services Committee Estimates. I guess there were a number of things that were pointed out in terms of the reforms that we are going through. A number of questions were posed as to what the restructuring of the health care system will look like, whether any decisions have been made or have not been made. Obviously, the government and the minister just finished those consultations on health reform. They are, right now, digesting the information that was provided to them. They are assessing it on that particular level and they will certainly be making some recommendations in hopefully the very near future as to what direction we will move in. But there was no doubt, the emphasis is definitely on wellness and on community health. It has been a big concern for people throughout our Province, to ensure that we are developing good community health programs, that we are being able to provide services where people are. Accessibility is always an issue. Obviously, when you look at some areas of the Province, it becomes a bigger issue and more of a challenge. I just have to refer to my own area in which people have to travel outside of their community for most services that they want to access, especially when it is specialized services. It is okay if those services are accessible through Goose Bay or through St. Anthony, because it is a subsidized system of health care then in which the government pays and they just have to pay a smaller fee. But, when these people are being referred to major centres like Corner Brook or St. John's, it obviously becomes very expensive for them. I have run into many cases in my district where people have had to come out here for extended periods of time for health care services and it sometimes causes a great deal of stress on families and a burden on families. So, no doubt, that is a challenge that we still have in our system and one that we will continue to work on in terms of the accessibility issue.

I can honestly say, Madam Speaker, having made those comments, that the clinic system that we have in Coastal Labrador, where we have small clinics with two nurses in very remote areas, is probably the best service of rural health care that we can have in isolated, remote areas. I think you will see that what we have done in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has been a role model for other northern areas across the country, because quite often we have inquiries into the system that we have, and how we have set it up, and how it is established, but I can honestly say, having been a part of that system of small clinics in small communities with nurse practitioners and outpost nurses who have specialty training to deal with emergency situations in places like this, it is probably one of the best systems that we could have in a rural area. I certainly stand by that particular system.

There were a number of other issues that arose as a part of the estimates on the Department of Health and Community Services, and a lot of them focused around the primary health care piece and the access to primary services. There were a number of questions addressed with regard to the expansion of services in certain areas of the Province, and the minister and the officials addressed those particular questions that were brought forward.

Also, there were some questions around the need to provide additional facilities or more beds for seniors' care, and this is one of the issues in which the department and the government have been dealing with over the last months and will continue to deal with over the coming months. We all realize that we are in a situation in this Province where we have an aging population. We have to be able to provide for that aging population, and that will include either having facilities available whereby they can access the services of a facility or increasing the home-support services to allow more people in their own homes to be able to access the service that they need. This, no doubt, is a challenge for all of us, and one of the challenges that will seriously be looked at and considered as a part of the assessment on what will happen within the whole health care sector within our Province, as well as across the country. It is not an isolated issue to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue that affects all of us, and obviously an issue that we will want to undertake over the next few months.

Madam Speaker, there were a number of other issues that were discussed around health care. As I said, our estimates ran about five-and-a-half hours on that particular committee alone. I want to also highlight some of the other issues, especially those around the Department of Education. We had a great deal of discussion around education within the Province, both as it relates to post-secondary education and our day school system. I think the estimates on both of these departments went as well for extended periods of time. Both of them we had to call two sessions on. Obviously, the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary, being a new department in government, had a number of new programs and new services that were being offered, and members certainly wanted to know how those programs were being received out there within the public and what some of the measures were in terms of the progress of these particular programs.

There are a couple of things I wanted to outline in terms of education -

MADAM SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MS JONES: By leave, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MS JONES: Do I have leave, Madam Speaker? I am hearing no leave; I am hearing leave. I am not sure.

MR. MANNING: By leave to clue up (inaudible).

MS JONES: The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is making himself quite clear across the way. He obviously is willing to give me maybe a minute, but that is it. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that a number of members today have had leave to conclude their remarks from their committee and I would appreciate being afforded the same opportunity.

In having leave, Madam Speaker, I will take the opportunity to highlight a couple of the things that arose through the Department of Education Estimates because it is important, I think, to point out some of the recommendations that were presented by the Williams-Sparkes report, which was the ministerial panel on education delivery in the classroom. Although the report was developed in consultation with stakeholders within the education system, one of the recommendations in the report pointed out that there would have been a reduction in teachers within the classroom by some 426 teaching positions. Obviously, we felt that this would have a serious impact on programs within our schools. Government and the department at that time opted to only reduce the number of teachers, that they felt were sufficient to be able to do so, without impacting on the current programs within the system. I think at this particular time, also the NLTA is looking at having a number of teachers who will retire or up for early retirement over the next little while. So while there are something like 200 teachers being taken out of the system, it certainly will not impact the numbers that are there in terms of people being laid off or out of work. It is our understanding that more than this number will retire or looking at early retirement and there may also be a need to even hire new teachers, to recruit new teachers, in the next year.

I also want to reiterate, Madam Speaker, that our teacher-student ratio is one of the best in the country. We have one teacher for every thirteen-point-four students. I think that is important to point out because, as you know, we have a lot of very small schools in our Province and in order for us to be able to deliver significant programs and programs of value to those students, we need to ensure that we have the proper resources and human resources in the schools to do so. We have been able to do that through making special allocations for rural schools across the Province and being able to accommodate these smaller schools. I have a number of them in my district, in particular, and I can certainly tell you that empty allocations were not made and some lenience was not granted to those particular schools. Many of them would be left with only one teacher to deliver a curriculum to maybe eight or ten grades within that school, and that would be very, very difficult, almost impossible, Madam Speaker. Thankfully, there are allocations made to be able to deal with unique situations like this, to allow children to be educated in their communities, even in a small school setting.

Madam Speaker, I realize that my time has expired and I do appreciate being given leave to clue up because I think this is a very important piece, the estimates of this particular committee. It deals with education, health, and other committees as well, but two of the more important departments within government that certainly provide valuable services to the public. It is very difficult to be able to comment to any great degree on some of the things that are happening within both of these departments in a few minutes. Having said that, Madam Speaker, I am sure there will be other opportunities, as we continue to debate, for other members to rise and have comments.

In concluding, I would just like to thank the members of the committee for the input that they have had and the service that they have shown, and also to thank the various departments that were involved with the Social Services Committee. Their officials and their minister were very diligent in their work, provided good factual information, very detailed information, and I certainly thank them for that.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to be able to make a few comments on concurrence debate on the Social Services Committee. I listened intently as the chair of the committee voiced her beliefs and her concerns with the committee over the past few weeks as we have debated those estimates. I also want to echo - I agree with her in part, Madam Speaker. We had excellent cooperation from the ministers involved and their staff. The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education and her staff; to the Minister of Justice and his staff; to the Minister of Labour and her staff; to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and his staff, and to the Minister of Health and Community Services. We had great cooperation from those people.

As a matter of fact, we did not get to finish the first session. We had to come back and do another session, and they so willing did so. Now our first session ended up on a bumpy ride but certainly we got back in and managed to finish up the second session very productively, I would say. Certainly, the Minister of Education, we also brought back for the second time. We had excellent cooperation from the Minister of Education and her staff in relation to the estimates, and the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. As a matter of fact, we did bring that minister and her staff back the second time also to make sure that we had all the opportunity to have a good, solid debate on all of the estimates of these very, very important departments to the people of the Province.

Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to thank the members of the committee, especially my own members on my side of the House. The member in the Department of Health, the Member for Trinity North did a superb job putting forward the issues and concerns of the Department of Health. He certainly peppered the minister with questions on the many different issues and concerns that he had. Also, the Member for St. John's West joined us on a couple of occasions, and the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. I have to say, Madam Speaker, that the Member for Waterford Valley joined us also and certainly played a major role in the great discussions that we had. We also had members from the other side of the House, Madam Speaker, who were, at times, a bit agitated, especially the Member for Humber East, a bit agitated sometimes with how things were going, but I am sure at the end of the day he realized that was the process we had to go through. I read somewhere the other day, if memory serves me correctly, Madam Speaker, that he is the unhappiest man in the Legislature. So, I understand why sometimes he did get agitated.

It was an opportunity for us to go through the different departments of the government that are of major importance to the people of the Province. The Department of Health and the Department of Education are two major departments, and we certainly felt that these issues needed to be raised. The questions needed to be asked, and we planned on staying there as long as we needed to stay.

I have to disagree, Madam Speaker, with the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, as she gave such a glowing report on things that are happening in our Province; such a glowing report. It is amazing that we live in a society where there are joint waiting lists for health care services in this Province, joint waiting lists for home support services in this Province, and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair can stand on her feet and give such a glowing report on the things that are happening here. I have to ask myself: Do I live in the same Province, Madam Speaker? Do I live in the same Province as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair lives in, when she gives such a glowing report on health care in this Province, when she gives such a glowing report on education in this Province? I have to ask myself, Madam Speaker. She tries to convince the people of this Province to look up and the sun is shining, and it is a beautiful blue sky that we have; and, at the same time people are looking up, this government is picking their pockets with taxes that they come into. That is why we have a mess in this Province, Madam Speaker.

We look at accumulated deficits in health care alone. I want the opportunity to run through a couple of these, if I could, Madam Speaker. I want an opportunity to run through these because they are not necessarily maybe out to the public as much as they should be. The projected accumulated deficit to March 31, 2002, this fiscal year that we are in, for the Health Care Corporation of St. John's is $21 million; the St. John's Nursing Home Board, $4.9 million; the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment Research Foundation, $3.7 million; the Avalon Health Care Institutions Board, $7.1 million; the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation, $8.5 million; Central East Health Care Institutions Board, $8.1 million; Central West Health Corporation, $0.2 million; Western Health Care Corporation, $21.4 million; Grenfell Regional Health Services Board, $2 million; Heath Labrador Corporation, $10.2 million; Health and Community Services St. John's, $6.3 million; Health and Community Services Eastern, $5.5 million; Health and Community Services Central, $3.3 million; Health and Community Services Western, $1.5 million; for a total projected accumulated deficit this year of $103.7 million.

This was not shown when the minister stood up on her feet here a few weeks ago and presented the Budget to this Province. This was not included. To say we have a $93 million deficit, Madam Speaker, to come back looking for another $107 million in Bill 7, and then we have $103.7 projected deficit here and the list goes on and one. That is why, when we had the opportunity to sit here in the House and ask questions, we made sure that all the questions that needed to be asked were asked. But, as with another committee of the House here - and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair said we had a very exciting committee. Well, I am not sure if she was including the Member for Humber East when she was talking about excitement, but we had a very exciting committee.

With the release of the Hay Report a few weeks ago, Madam Speaker, we felt, as a committee, and I felt as an individual on that committee, that there was a need to clear the air in relation to the Hay Report. So, I put forward a letter on May 7 to the Chair of the committee, Ms Jones, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, asking her, as a member of the House, as a member of that committee, to ask some people to come forward to our committee to answer come questions, to address some of the issues and concerns, especially those that were raised in the Hay Report. I asked her to bring forward Mr. Hunter from the Hay Corporation. I asked her to invite Dr. Lydia Hatcher, Ms Debbie Forward and Mr. John Peddle to come forward.

As usual, when we wanted to clear the air, when we had concerns that were out in the public in relation to the Hay Report and the medical services that are offered in this Province, when we had the opportunity to ask those question, what happened? The majority of the committee voted to shut us down and not to invite those people in. I think that is a sad commentary, when we are trying to get an opportunity here with a department that has a $1.5 billion budget. Forty-five cents of every dollar in this Province is spent on health care; and we had some majority concerns raised here by the Hay Report. We had an opportunity to sit down and ask some questions, clear the air, and what happened when we got that chance? We got a committee to come in, who voted us down.

We ask ourselves then, Madam Speaker, why the people of this Province are losing confidence in this government. We ask ourselves why they are losing confidence. It is because of things like that. It is because of shutting down a committee's work, that we are losing confidence.

MR. SWEENEY: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, I listened to the Member for Harbour Grace, as a matter of fact, up earlier this evening as he went through poll for poll in the district, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Efford was successful in last night. I asked him- it is very strange to see him now supporting Mr. Efford. He is Mr. Efford's friend today. He wasn't so much Mr. Efford's friend last February, Madam Speaker.

I thought: Why wouldn't the Member for Carbonear- Harbour Grace, who was so quick on his feet to give a report of Mr. Efford's district, why didn't he give a report on the other districts, Madam Speaker? I asked myself why. So, when I went up at suppertime I decided to do a little bit of research and I found out why the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace did not give a report, Madam Speaker. I will tell you why he did not give a report: because in the other district, in the District of Gander-Grand Falls, history was made last night. History was made last night in the District of Gander-Grand Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, we have in the district - I will just break down the provincial districts, instead of getting into all of the detail that the Member of Carbonear- Harbour Grace got into. In the provincial District of Gander, who has the Minister of Youth Service and Post- Secondary Education, Mr. Barnes won that district handily last night, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: In the District of Grand Falls- Buchans, another seat held by a minister here, Madam Speaker, the new MP for Gander- Grand Falls won that handily, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Would you believe this? Some people may not believe it, some people may have a problem in believing this, Madam Speaker, but indeed in the Premier's own District of Exploits, Mr. Rex Barnes went to victory in that district also, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: So, how come the Member for Carbonear- Harbour Grace was not up telling us that, Madam Speaker? I wonder why? Because, as I said, Mr. Rex Barnes made history last night.

You are getting me off my topic. You are putting me off my topic.

Madam Speaker, we went through various departments of government under the Estimates Committee, very important departments of government. When we talk about departments of government, Youth Services and Post- Secondary Education, and we talk about the Department of Labour and the Department of Education and the Department of Health, they are very important departments of government. We went through a process over a two-week period, almost into three weeks, where we had an opportunity to ask many questions, and I have to credit where credit is due. The ministers and their staff, in most cases, were very forthcoming with the answers to the questions that we raised, but we are very concerned that we did not get the opportunity to invite the people in, the people we were bringing in, that we wanted brought in, to address some of the concerns that we had.

Madam Speaker, the Department of Health is a very important department, as I said earlier. I just want to touch, if I could, on a few issues that not only came up in estimates but definitely are issues that relate to the people in my district of Placentia & St. Mary's, and I am sure no stranger to districts all across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As most people understand, we have an aging population. Out-migration is heavy in this Province. In the past six years we have lost 50,000 people. The larger concern that we have is our aging population, an aging population where many, many of the families have moved to different parts of the country to find work. Many people, including my own two parents, live by themselves now. We have many, many concerns as families in this Province.

We look at the home support services and how much money could be saved by keeping people in their homes. I have umpteen examples in my own district of people looking for home support and are finding it very, very difficult to get it. There is an opportunity there. The government could save money. Madam Speaker, it is an opportunity again, of spending money wisely. I guess that is what it comes down to.

We hear from members opposite all the time about us, on this side, looking for more money. Looking for more money for roads, looking for more money for health care, looking for more money for education. There is no doubt about it, I guess there is no such thing as having enough money to address all the concerns people have, but it is in spending the money wisely that counts. It is to spend that money wisely.

When the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair stood on her feet and talked about the improvements that they have made in health care, the amounts of dollars that they have put into health care over the past five years, and then I asked myself: If everything is so rosy, as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair would like to paint it to be, how come I got a call last week from a lady in my district who needs to have a mammogram and cannot get it until March of 2003? They are the kind of concerns that we have in health care in this Province. They are the concerns that we have, the concerns of access to this health care. We talk about the concerns people have and the list goes on and on.

If we go down to the waiting rooms in the hospitals here, we have a minimum wait of five to six hours for emergency services in some cases, Madam Speaker. Very, very grave concerns put forward by the people of this Province.

We had the opportunity to ask the minister and his staff, through the Estimates Committee, some of these issues and concerns that I have been raising here. The list goes on and on in regards to health care.

We have education concerns. One of the departments that we touched on was education. Again, I will go back to situations in my own district, and I do not have to go any further. I am sure that these situations that I am relaying here tonight are not only situations in my District of Placentia & St. Mary's, but they are situations throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, I talked to a school in my district not very long ago, as a matter of fact a couple of weeks ago, and I brought it up in the Estimates Committee. A few years ago they used to get a budget from the school board of $14,000 for copy paper, cartridges for computers, chalk, et cetera. This year, two years later, it is cut down to $11,400. Now we have a school in my district, and I am sure they are in other districts in the Province, with almost two months to go in the school year and now they are out selling bingo cards to try to raise money to get copy paper and cartridges for their computers. Is that advancement, Madam Speaker, I ask you? Is that progress, when we have school children out selling bingo cards to raise money for copy paper and cartridges for computers? If that is advancement, Madam Speaker, I would like to know the definition that this government gives advancement because that, in my view, is not advancement.

I think it is a sad commentary on the educational system in this Province when we have to have young students in our Province out knocking on doors selling bingo cards to raise money for copy paper and cartridges. I understand fully if children in the school want to partake in extracurricular activities, if they want to go on sports functions, if they want to go on school trips. I understand fully the need to go out and raise extra money in the community for that. I do not have a problem with that, Madam Speaker. What I do have a problem with is when school children have to go out and knock on doors and sell bingo cards to raise money for copy paper and cartridges, and things that are needed to fulfill their education. I have a problem with that, and I am sure all people in the Province have a problem with that. Again, Madam Speaker, we go back to a situation where the people of the Province are losing trust in this government; they are losing confidence in this government. We seen that reflected in the by-elections that were held here last night.

I listened to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and I listened to her with interest, Madam Speaker. I listened to her with interest because she talked about the continuation of lobbying the federal government for more health care dollars. She talked about the continuation of doing that, and asking the federal government to invest more dollars in health care in this Province. We certainly agree with that. We agree with the continuation of lobbying the federal government for more.

We heard Paul Martin talking about the surplus in Ottawa. We heard Paul Martin talking about the surplus in the EI fund. We heard Paul Martin talking about the enormous amount of dollars that they are taking in in revenue in Ottawa, Madam Speaker. We had Paul Martin come down here during the federal election campaign. During a by-election campaign we had Paul Martin visit this Province and meet with the Ministers of Finance in Corner Brook, and what happens? Everybody is unhappy at the end of the day. Paul Martin says there are no new dollars for health care until the Romanow report is done in the fall, and then he will look at it. Can we wait until the fall for more dollars from the Liberal government in Ottawa? We would think that the Liberal government here would be able to convince their Liberal cousins in Ottawa to put more dollars into health care, but then we had a situation where there was a Finance Ministers' meeting held in Corner Book. Right in the middle of a by-election campaign we had Finance Minister Paul Martin down here, to go out and sit down at a table in Corner Brook to look for more dollars for health care, and Paul Martin says no. Paul Martin says: no, we are going to wait until the fall when the Romanow report comes back and then we will look at you then. You would think that they would be able to convince their cousins in Ottawa to put more money into health care in this Province.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I hear the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation, but maybe they put a power point presentation up to him. Maybe that is why they did not get any money for health care, it is the power point presentation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't understand it if I did.

MR. MANNING: I would understand it. A grade six would understand that, Madam Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, we have cousins in Ottawa. I say to the Government House Leader, we have another cousin in Ottawa after last night that not even you guys dreamed could happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Listen here, I say to the Government House Leader, our cousins in Ottawa, we sent a new cousin up there last night. Now if I were you, I would be concerned about your cousins. I can understand your concern after the record of your members with Gerry Byrne, with the record that you have with Lawrence O'Brien, with the record that you have with John Efford. I can understand why you would be concerned.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: By leave, Madam Speaker, just to clue up.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: One minute to clue up.

MR. MANNING: I thank the members opposite for the opportunity to make a few closing, conclusive remarks.

I would just like to say that as a member of the Social Services Committee of the House it was one of the most interesting sessions of a committee that we had here over the past number of years. I am sure the Member for Humber East would agree with me 100 per cent on that. It was one of the most interesting sessions that we had. We had very long deliberations in some cases, but very worthwhile deliberations, Madam Speaker. We certainly had the opportunity to ask questions and to pose and put forward the issues and concerns of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through the Estimates Committee.

We look forward to the next few hours and having an opportunity to make more comments, not only on this committee, Madam Speaker, but indeed all the committees of the House and the work that they do here.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to make a few comments with respect to the Concurrence Debate in this social committee. Unfortunately, I have to, again, take exception to some of the comments made by the vice-chair with respect to how he described the calling of witnesses with respect to the Hay Report and how that was so important to the work of the committee. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, it was an example of what I would term - having been here for some thirteen years - as a desperate attempt to abuse the committee process for political purposes.

Just so we all know, because I think everybody here does know, that these are committees to deal with the estimates of the Budget that the government has presented and it provides an opportunity to ask detailed questions about all of the entries that are in the Budget.

I heard the Opposition House Leader yesterday talking about shutting down another committee with respect to the Resource Committee, and using that kind of language, saying: we only got to page so-and-so. When, in fact, they were there six-and-a-half hours and did not ask any questions about what was on the pages in the Budget. They were asking questions about everything else.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, I am not going to let stand the comments by the Premier that are designed to infuriate and cause debate. His statements are misleading. They are not correct and any person who is elected in this House understands this if they would take the time to read the Standing Orders. Estimate Committees, by their nature, are Standing Committees. Secondly, Estimate Committees deal with a wide range of issues. Estimates as presented by the government on the one-hand; future direction and policy of the government on the other hand; and every committee in its turn asks that. That is the definition.

Finally, Madam Speaker, if the Premier would take the time to read the section under our own Standing Orders: It is within every member's right, on any Standing Committee in this House, to request witnesses. If the Premier wants to continue to mislead and not deal with the facts, then we will deal with points of orders every time he does so.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I find it rather strange, the hon. members opposite are great people to dish it out but, Madam Speaker, when somebody comes back at them they cannot take it. The first thing they do is run.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I sit in this House and listen to members give their speeches and I give them a fair amount of levity, but the first time somebody on this side of the House says something that approaches the truth, the hon. members are up on their feet claiming a point of order. Madam Speaker, as I said, they can dish it out but I tell them: Be men, take it too!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules there is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I understand that issue was dealt with in the Legislature and that it was clear that all committees, except the Estimates Committee, have the right to call witnesses. I believe that was dealt with in this Legislature, Madam Speaker.

In any event, the issue is that it was part of a tactic - well known now - that the Opposition uses to again, mislead and misrepresent some of the things that are happening. We obviously have a difference of opinion on that, but it happens to be a fact.

Madam Speaker, the other point is this: through all of this, what they were trying to suggest in the Resource Committee, and also in this one, by asking for the Hay Report, which is being done to look at possible efficiencies in the health care system, which were demanded by the current finance critic, who used to be the health critic, and who also suggested - but I am sure he will get up now and say it is not true - repeatedly, and it is in Hansard, that there is at least $100 million worth of savings and efficiencies in health care. When we commissioned a report to go and look for it, he says, with the new health critic: You should disassociate yourself from the report. You should throw it out. You should not even look at it.

Madam Speaker, that is the kind of representation and so on that we get, and the kind of use and misuse of the committees that we have seen with the Official Opposition at this point in time.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Premier did make a statement that is incorrect. He raised it in this House before and he even went so far as to take a section from Hansard. It was quite a stretchy statement, I might add, Madam Speaker, quite a stretch in what I said and what he is interpreting me as saying. It is absolutely false what he is saying here in this House. I have said it before and I had to rise - this is at least three times I have risen on this point - to indicate that there is an inaccurate statement made in this House, and any time it is made I will stand on a point of order and have it corrected.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, if we had to stand every time the hon. gentleman made an inaccurate statement we would almost be in a standing position permanently.

It is funny, the hon. gentleman thinks that he is the only one in this House who can speak accurately. He thinks somehow that he has the corner on truth and accuracy. I say that there is no point of order; not even close to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House rules there is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Maybe I will see if I can get the Member for Ferryland to rise again because I take it - if I interpret his comments - that now he is suggesting there are no efficiencies to be made in health care. We must be doing everything perfectly. There are no savings that can be achieved. So he can't have it both ways. Either there are savings that can be achieved, and you stand by that statement, which is in Hansard, or you admit that we are doing a perfect job and you can't imagine how we could probably do it, or possibly do it, any better.

Madam Speaker, I did want to make this point because the idea of taking some words, which we saw a couple of days ago by the Leader of the Opposition, from a committee, a few words from a sentence, and suggesting that it was exactly what he said, is fairly typical of what we have seen in terms of the approach that is taken almost every single day on every single issue. To make sure that there is some clarity, particularly on an issue that is as important to the future of the Province as a Voisey's Bay deal can be, if we are ever successful in getting one, Madam Speaker, I wanted to clarify some things with respect to that. Members opposite would have you believe that it is so critically important that it would have impacts on everything we do: health, social services and education, the kinds of things they we are talking about now in this committee, as well as everything else that the government can possibly achieve and accomplish on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Madam Speaker, they have now before the Legislature, on a daily basis, petitions, and when they speak to the petitions they suggest that the government is not willing to debate a Voisey's Bay deal in this Legislature. They are demanding that, before a deal be signed, that it be debated in this Legislature. Madam Speaker, let me say this: It has always been, and I have always answered the question when that condition was put on it, that the answer to that would be, no. It has always been the position of this government that we will gladly debate and disclose the full terms and conditions of a deal with Voisey's Bay, or with Inco with respect to Voisey's Bay, if we are ever fortunate enough to reach one. We are trying very hard to do it. We will never do it before signing, because that makes no practical sense whatsoever.

Madam Speaker, even the Opposition has acknowledged that. Even the Opposition, in their own words, have acknowledged that. They have said: You have the majority, you have twenty-eight people in here, so what are you afraid of? If it goes to a vote you know it is going to pass this Legislature in any event.

That is the point that I want to clarify. We will gladly - as a matter of fact, I will make a commitment to the Legislature tonight that, if we are fortunate enough to reach a deal with Inco with respect to the development of Voisey's Bay nickel, we will convene a special session of the Legislature to lay the deal on the table and debate the full details and concepts of it so that every single -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I understand the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's getting a bit agitated, because I know the very difficult position he is in, where he has chosen to agree with his leader that there not be research and development and probably no jobs for the people of his district rather than stand up for the people of his own district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I understand his agitation. I would be every bit as upset as he is, if I were in his position like he has been for the last few months.

Madam Speaker, the point is this: Every single detail of a Voisey's Bay deal will be presented to every single person in the Province who has an interest in it. We have said that every single time I have spoken to the issue. The members opposite feel that it is important enough that there also be an opportunity to debate it in the Legislature. We will make sure that is facilitated, because if it happens in July, we will convene the Legislature in July. If it happens next October, we will convene the Legislature in October. If it happens some time when the Legislature is not in session, we will convene the Legislature and have the debate right here in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the whole notion of when the debate occurs, I would like to address for a minute, too, because I know the members opposite are interested in it. I know they will talk about it, as the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's just did say: I would agree with that if the debate happens before you sign it.

Let's deal with that issue seriously, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is this: This caucus will not be signing a deal and will not be bringing it forward to the people of the Province unless we have become convinced that we have met the mandate that we have been given for full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador of all of the resource over the life of the project.

I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that they talked about not an ounce or not a spoonful because they have also now run an ad campaign saying that we got elected on a mandate saying: Not one spoonful of ore will leave the Province; not one spoonful of ore will leave the Province. The mandate, Mr. Speaker, is in the Red Book, which says: We will get full processing to a finished product in the Province. The speech from the Premier of the day said: Not one spoonful of ore will leave.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to explain it yesterday and now I know they are going to say you are being cute and you are just trying to play with words. The Minister of Mines and Energy has never ever entered into a discussion with Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel that contemplates any ore ever leaving Newfoundland and Labrador. So we will have a deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We will have a deal in which no ore, not one spoonful of ore, which is in their ads, which is in their petitions and so on - we will meet that mandate if that is how they want to define the mandate.

Let me make that point again, Mr. Speaker. That is how the Opposition has decided to try and frame and shape the mandate that we were given in 1999: Not one spoonful of ore. If that is the mandate, then we will meet that mandate to an absolute, non-unequivocal tee, absolutely 100 per cent certain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: So if that's how they want to define the mandate, we can say to them, that mandate will be met because we have never, ever, entered even a conversation about anything other than that.

What we have honestly acknowledged to the people of the Province is that if the mandate for the Official Opposition is that not one spoonful of ore, not one spoonful of concentrate, not one spoonful of any form of the resource in any shape will ever leave the Province, if that is how they want to define and redefine the mandate, then so be it. If that is what they think they can negotiate, I can tell you, from a government that has been at it for six years, that there will not be a deal with respect to Voisey's Bay with those conditions because we have put those conditions to the proponents for five or six years and the answer is: Under those circumstances, there will be no project developed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I heard the critic for Mines and Energy today talk about his speech in Stephenville, when he said the people agreed with him. He said: because we told them we want a deal. His speech was: we want a deal. We agree with the government. It is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador to get a deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I can tell you for a fact, if he wants a deal, if his leader wants a deal, if their party wants a deal, and they also want to say: there will never be any ore, there will never be any concentrate leave Newfoundland and Labrador, then they will get to ask the question once in six or seven, eight, nine or ten years time when they might form the government, and the answer will be no. There will be no deal between now and then, and there will be no deal then. That will be made crystal clear. So there has to be some version of making the deal happen, which we have been trying to negotiate, which says we will lend some of the resource in a certain form so that it is returned and that we get all of it over the life of the project. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? When we say that to the people of the Province honestly, they say: we agree with you, that's a good concept. Because they are used to Newfoundland and Labrador lending something to their neighbors and getting it back. It is quite common in Newfoundland and Labrador's circles, and the cynics opposite don't want to hear tell of it because the deal might happen on that circumstance. It just might happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me say again, there is no hesitation whatsoever for this government to debate a deal that we will hopefully enter into, if we get there, with Inco with respect to the development of the Voisey's Bay nickel deposit, in this Legislature, in community halls, anywhere anybody wants to debate it in Newfoundland and Labrador, because just like we have done with anything else in the last fifteen months, as soon as we get a document that means something, that has some substance to it, that has been agreed to, Mr. Speaker, we will table it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thirty seconds to clue up is all I need, Mr. Speaker, by leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you very much.

We will table it in this Legislature. We will give it to anybody in the Province who wants it, and if it makes sense, we will provide an opportunity for debate here so every single member can raise all the issues that they have with it, they can hopefully tell the things they agree with, they can point out the things that they had hoped would be better. We are not going to get the perfect deal. We are not going to get the ideal deal. We are not going to get the absolute that we would love to have. I can tell you that now in all honesty, but we are going to get the very best deal that maximizes benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador and we will gladly share it here and everywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, is this the big announcement that the Premier dragged the press in here for tonight? I have never seen such a non-announcement since Brian Tobin spent a million dollars of the taxpayers money to announce a Lower Churchill deal that never happened, because that's exactly what the Premier has done here tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: For people who have taken the time to understand what is at stake here, the Premier's comments are very, very revealing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all let's deal - yes, they are. They reveal what has actually taken place in this government's caucus on this specific deal.

Now lets analyze it. If there is one person in the Legislature tonight who knows what the 1999 election was all about, it is me, because at the time I was leader of the party. I had to debate the former Premier at the time, on many occasions, in many other times. Every member on that side of the House campaigned with him in 1996 and particularly, in 1999 when he asked the people of the Province to give him a mandate so that he and his colleagues, Mr. Speaker, could finish the job. He asked the question: Who do you want to finish the deal? Who is it that you want to finish the deal? That is what he asked.

Mr. Speaker, here is what the Premier of today said, here is what he has indicated. He has talked about calling a special legislative sitting to deal with a potential Voisey's Bay deal. Now I ask you this, I ask everyone who is listening tonight, this simple question: How good was the debate that we had on Friede Goldman when they had already signed it? Did it impact on our ability to change such a controversial arrangement that this government made?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it did not! Let me ask this question: Premier, how is it that a special legislative session - because this is what is going to get the news - is going to change the fact of the matter that, before a deal is final and binding, a small group of people in a Cabinet are going to make the arrangement - it is government policy - they are going to inform their backbenchers and then say we are going to come to the House for open debate? How is it that we are going to be able to change the terms and conditions of a deal that you have no mandate to sign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier went on to say this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You had your turn!

He talks about, not one ounce. That was said. He said: if that is our position, if that is this party's position.

It was everybody's position, Premier, including yours, in 1999. It was yours as well!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, listen to this. This is really where we get to the pith and substance of what this Premier is trying to sell; something that, in my view, is unsellable. He said: It is this party's position. If it is not one ounce - if it is our party's position, which used to be his, and used to be the rest of theirs, but now that is moving in this direction, he said this: then this government has tried for six years and we have never been able to arrange a deal.

Anything less than what you campaigned on, then you have absolutely no right to sign it on behalf of the people of the Province - none whatsoever!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, how dare this government and this Premier come to this House tonight with some nonsense little resolution that is designed to try to influence polling and pacify a Liberal caucus who are not supporting any ore going out of this Province. That is all this deal is about!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what he is about tonight!

What was so special in his caucus meeting today, that he couldn't stand -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Here is the question: What was so special in the Liberal caucus meeting today that he couldn't stand under Ministerial Statements and announce this? What was so special about this announcement, that we drag the media in, wait for 9:40 p.m., to say: Our government is so transparent, we are so accountable, that we will have a special legislative session in the House to deal with a deal that we have already signed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: How is it, Premier, that the people of the Province are going to get -

PREMIER GRIMES: You called for a debate (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me tell you what we have called for. The Premier has just indicated to me that we have called for a debate and we don't want it.

Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. The fundamental difference -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, how is it that the people of the Province are going to get a chance to correct what may be wrong? That is what, fundamentally, this Assembly is about. Here is the difference. The Premier has indicated, he has said: We have called for a debate and now we don't want it.

No, Mr. Speaker, here is what we have called for, so it is clear. We have asked for this Assembly, and it occurred here last March when I asked your former Deputy Premier, your buddy, Mr. Tulk, would we get an opportunity to debate this deal in this Assembly before it was final and binding on the people of the Province. He said, absolutely, yes. The next day, I asked you, Mr. Premier, the same question, and you said, no.

The difference is, that we have called for a debate. We have called for a debate on a deal that, if it is going to occur, that before it is final and binding on the people of the Province, that at least - at the very least - the Province's duly-elected representatives have the opportunity to perform their parliamentary duty in this Legislature, which is to debate all issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what the Premier has done tonight is nothing but a public relations scam. That is the best way to describe it.

Let me say this: The fundamental difference, if you want to know, is that the position we took on this issue - and it goes back to 1994, it goes back to 1995, before Voisey's Bay was even an issue that is being hotly contested and debated in this Legislature - has been consistent since that time.

In 1996, on a promise of a better tomorrow, former Premier Brian Tobin rode into town and basically insinuated and talked about how good it would be, how much of a better tomorrow we were going to have, because we would have a smelter, we would have a refinery, and we would have all the processing in this Province. That is the mandate that you received.

In 1999, in the headquarters of the Minister of Post-Secondary and Advanced Studies - and I have the transcript, as I do on most transcripts on this issue, I have it - he was asked, and it was the seventh visit to her campaign headquarters when he announced, at that time, that there would be - everybody who is now in the Cabinet would still be in the Cabinet if they were re-elected; but he was pressed on this issue by a KIXX reporter. Mr. Tobin was pressed and asked consistently, would any ore be leaving the Province? Do you know what he said? Not one ounce of unconcentrated ore, not one spoonful.

It gets better than that. In this Legislature, in the fall of 1999, when the hydromet facility first raised its head, we sat in this Legislature for some eighteen days, I think it was. The Premier of today was the Minister of Mines and Energy at the time. Former Premier Brian Tobin didn't sit very much in that sitting of the House because the whole issue - Question Period was dominated by hydromet. It was dominated by the splitting of hairs by this government and in particular this minister, because he and I, mostly, were the ones who were questioning and answering on the issue. It came down to: Will nickle concentrate leave?

What is nickle concentrate? It is semi-processed, no value added. It is like raw cod block being semi-processed here, shipped to the Boston marketplace to add value, and we buy them back later in Captain Highliner fish sticks and other products. That is what semi-processed means.

For the whole debate during the fall of 1999 in this Legislature, a deal was on, a deal was off; but, here is what happened. This Premier, who was the Minister of Mines and Energy at the time, was the one who wanted to deal. A huge debate in the Cabinet on it. The former Minister of Finance, the former Member for Humber West, didn't want to have any part of it. The former member, now currently MP for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, didn't want to have any part of it because it involved huge amounts of ore leaving the Province for a promise to come back at some other point.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is what we are getting to. When it came down to the eleventh hour on that deal, what happened? Former Premier Tobin met with senior officials of Inco and said: Absolutely not, it is off. And it was off until this Premier got elected as Premier of the Province, and he stands tonight as if there were some new news in what he is saying, some big announcement, some big commitment to the people of the Province, that now there is going to be a debate on a deal that he is going to sign and it is too late for anyone to do anything about it.

Mr. Speaker, let me finish by saying this: The fundamental difference between members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House is that members here are policy-makers by conviction and not by convenience.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

There are really two points that I want to make in adding a few words to the debate in the Social Services Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you. I thought I was on, but others think they have a right to speak when somebody else is recognized by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. First of all, I will move from the issue of the debate in the House and why it is important that we have committed to the Premier tonight to having a full debate in the House. I will deal with the issue of the difference for greater clarity, as I did earlier today in a speech in the House, as to what the difference is between ore and concentrate, because this is more than a play on words. This is and goes to the fundamentals of the position we have taken as a government and it goes to the fallacy of the position that the Opposition has taken as an Opposition. There are four or five processes before the ore that is in the ground in Voisey's Bay gets to be turned into a finished nickel product. There are four or five processes that occur.

The first thing that has to happen is that the ore has to be mined out of the ground in a mining exercise, in a mining process. Secondly - for the people of the Province and the people on the other side - process number two, the ore that is taken out of the ground -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I would ask my member to listen, if she would please, and hopefully learn a little bit. My member is the hon. the Member for St. John's West, and a fine member she is on any given day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: She does her job well. I regret that she may not do it well enough to be back after the next election, but she does it well to the best of her ability. But let me not digress again, Mr. Speaker, because she is an hon. lady who works hard.

The second thing that happens, Mr. Speaker, when the ore is taken out of the ground is that it goes through a milling process. There is to be a mill constructed at Voisey's Bay and the ore no longer remains as an ore, it goes through a milling process that makes it into a different formulation of product.

The third thing that happens - all of this, by the way, as the hon. member for Torngat says, all of this happens, and will happen, in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The third thing, Mr. Speaker, that will occur before anything leaves this Province is that the ore that is mined and put through a milling process will go through another process called a concentrator or a concentrating process. At that point there will be a partly processed to a finished product, a concentrate come out of that concentrator that will have to go to a processing facility somewhere to have a finished nickel product made out of it.

Mr. Speaker, we will never even discuss, much less contemplate signing a deal that has any prospect of ore or milled product leaving this Province. The minimum that will leave this Province, if anything ever leaves, will be a product that has gone through three phases already of handling -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - a product that has gone through three phases of reconfiguration, and it will be a concentrate product that we are talking about.

I say to the hon. member, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, his party can save their money. I say to his leader, he can save his money. They can pull their ads off the air. They can take their ads off television. They can take their ads off the paper. They can save their breath in the interest of living longer. They can save their breath in the interest of living longer because there will never be ore leave this Province. There will never be ore leave this Province as an ore product and as something that will be shipped out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - speak to the uselessness of the Opposition wanting to have the debate in this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me speak to the uselessness of the Opposition wanting to have the debate in this House before we have a deal to bring before the House. I think the uselessness of their position is rooted in a misunderstanding that they fundamentally have with respect to themselves. They believe somehow that as a result of February 9, 1999, they were elected to be part of government. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the people who sit on this side of the House were elected to govern. We were elected to make decisions on behalf of the people of the Province to move this Province forward, and a part of that mandate involves -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: A very large part of that mandate, Mr. Speaker, involves trying to develop our natural resources, our renewable resources and our non-renewable resources. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no value in having the people on the other side, and it would not be right. We would be not discharging our duty responsibly as a government if we were to ask the Opposition to become part of the decision making of this Province; but, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what a debate in this House will do. Let me tell you what a debate in this House will accomplish. Let me tell you what a debate in this House is really all about.

Mr. Speaker, we will explain to every member of this Province what it is we hopefully will accomplish in a deal to develop Voisey's Bay, if we are successful. What we will accomplish as part of that whole exercise in going out and talking to the people, and in coming in here and having the debate that the Premier has announced tonight, we will do one very important thing: we will allow, we will require, we will give opportunity, we will make it possible for every member of this House to declare themselves by standing and stating where it is they stand or fall on a deal that we will do on behalf of the people of the Province. I understand -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. Member for Ferryland: Be careful what you ask for.

I say to the people of the Province, that the members of this Legislature, every single one of the forty-seven who sit here today, will be required, by virtue of our election, to take a stand -

PREMIER GRIMES: He will explain it if you don't understand.

MR. MANNING: All this tells me is that you are going to close the stable door when the horse is gone.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I understand the imagery of horses, closing out of the barn door and the door being left open. I say to the hon. members in this House, there is a pretty good example of what a horse looks like when he bolts out of the door and don't know where he is going, he's running down a road and has no idea what the outcome will be. The hon. member has taken a position that we are going to do a bad deal. The fact of the matter is we have not done a deal, and until and unless we do a deal, the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's should cool his heels, should take a time out, should draw his breath, hold his breath, if he can hold it that long, or otherwise reserve what breath he has until he sees what the deal is. I can tell the members of this House that if we bring forward a deal we will be proud to present it to the people of the Province. We will have every confidence that it will be in the best interest of the people of the Province. We have every confidence that it will be supported by the people of the Province, and it will be interesting to see where the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's stands or falls.

Mr. Speaker, I have never yet in my lifetime seen a person standing on one leg, sitting on one cheek, and trying to straddle a position, as I believe the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's has to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Member for Placentia get the yellow pages in the phone book and I think he should look it up under, I am not sure whether it is a or r, but anyhow it is aerobics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: A.

MR. MATTHEWS: Under a, okay. I say, Mr. Speaker, if it is under a, look under aerobics and sign up for some lessons, because you are going to have to figure out a way of twisting your anatomy into a position that will be straddling an issue and you will be squarely in the center of nowhere, except la-la land.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the member will end up in a circumstance and in a position that, if he is not very careful, he will never be able to extricate himself from. He might suffocate in the tangle that he will make out of himself in terms of where he is going to come down on the position of a Voisey's Bay deal.

I hope the hon. member, over the next short period of time, or however long it takes for us to get a deal, will find it in his good conscience, will find it in his common sense, will find it in his good virtuous mind, on behalf of the people he represents, to ensure that he can come down on the right side of the issue on an apolitical basis, not on a basis that is dictated by politics, but on a basis that is dictated by project. A project, I say, that we hope we can conclude successfully for the benefit of the people of the Province and know that people in this Province will benefit more than the people in Torngat Mountains and Labrador generally, and the people in the Argentia-Placentia area, by virtue of where the activities will be taking place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Maybe.

MR. MATTHEWS: Maybe.

There will be benefits for everybody in this Province, that come from this project, Mr. Speaker, but certainly we believe in the principle of adjacency and we would understand if the people in Argentia, Placentia, and the surrounding areas, as well as the people on the Coast of Labrador, are not the primary beneficiaries, certainly, on the employment side.

Mr. Speaker, I believe tonight is a sober wake-up call. It is an opportunity that the Premier has delivered to the people on the other side of the House to give serious consideration as to what the real position is with respect to the Voisey's deal, and I would ask them to consider allowing the government to be the government and to go out and to do a deal that we think is a right deal, and allow us to come into this House, as we will, and let the people on both sides stand squarely, stand fairly, stand tall, stand proudly, one way or the other, with respect to our position on a deal that we believe and we know, if we bring it forward, will be a deal that we will be proud of and the people of the Province will be saying to all of us: Well done, on balance. We have an arrangement to move this forward.

As the Premier said earlier, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude: We will not have a perfect deal in terms of what the word perfection means. It will be a deal that will be made on earth. It will be made amongst mere mortals who will have input into it. It will not be one that will be made in heaven where the angels will be participating in this. It is a deal that will be made on earth. Mere mortals will be participants in the deal, and we will get it as right as we can. We will get it as fair as we can. We will get it as good as we can. We will get it as profitable as we can. We will get it as enriched as we can, on behalf of the people of the Province, and we will be glad to bring it forward and see who stands where and on what principles for the deal that we believe, hopefully, we will get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words in this debate. I realize that the dramatics are not as important right now because we are no longer on TV, so I will avoid the dramatics and talk about the facts and the realities of life in the interest that we all have in the Voisey's Bay development and in the interest of setting the record straight, at least for Hansard, and where we have come from on this issue, and not only this issue but the issue as well of the Lower Churchill Development Agreement.

We have taken a consistent position, which has now been recently strongly espoused by the Official Opposition, that any major project deal should be subject to the scrutiny of the House of Assembly, if possible, and preferably by a Select Committee of the House; that a Select Committee of the House should have an opportunity to study a deal, to call expert witnesses, to examine the arrangements, and to ensure that any deal of significance, such as the Voisey's Bay deal, would be subject to the scrutiny of a House Committee or the House itself before being finalized and permanent.

If I understand the Premier correctly in his speech here tonight, what he is saying is that he and his government are prepared to sign an agreement subject to the ratification of the House of Assembly. The same as, for example, a trade union might negotiate an agreement which is known widely as a tentative agreement. When there is an announcement of a settlement of a strike, when there is an announcement of a settlement of a dispute, and everybody makes their great announcement, and we think we got a really good deal, it is subject to the ratification on the union side by the members of the union and on the employers' side by an employers' council, if there happens to be more than one employer.

What I understand from the Premier's statement here tonight, is that he regards his government as being in the position of the negotiators. They are the ones who are going to sit down and negotiate the deal. They are going to attempt to achieve the best result for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Somebody has to do that. I don't think we have a sub-committee of this House that is going to negotiate the deal. I don't think we are going to have a committee on both sides, an all-party committee, to sit down and negotiate a deal with Inco. That is not a proper understanding of the executive versus the Legislature. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a proper role for this Legislature in terms of what I would call the ratification or not of the deal.

What happens, Mr. Speaker? It may be that the stakes will be high. It may be that the non-ratification of a deal of this nature means that the government fall. It may be a vote of non-confidence against the government; but I would regard a resolution in this House with the full opportunity to, as the Premier said, examine every part of the deal, know what is going on, and perhaps even, as happened in the Come By Chance arrangements, the bringing of Mr. Scott Hand before the Bar of the House of Assembly, the same as John Shaheen came before the Bar of the House of Assembly many years ago when the Come By Chance oil refinery project was developed. Maybe that needs to be part of it as well.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that what the Premier is proposing is that the deal, or whatever deal this government is able to negotiate, will be negotiated, but that it will be, at the end of the day, subject to the approval of the House of Assembly and a vote of this House of Assembly. If that is what the Premier is saying, and that is what I understood him to say, then I see that as a proper way to go forward: that we can see the government negotiate a deal, negotiate the best deal they can, bring it to the House of Assembly, and the House of Assembly, by resolution - presumably a government resolution - would either vote in favour of it or against it, after full debate, after the examination of whatever needs to be examined.

That is my understanding of what the Premier is proposing here tonight and, if that is correct, I would support that. I can support a situation where the government, as its rightful obligation, is to negotiate a deal, and the role of the House of Assembly is to approve it or not. If the House of Assembly does not approve it, then presumably either the government goes back and renegotiates the deal or the government falls by virtue of a motion of non-confidence. That is the way I would understand it, Mr. Speaker.

We can play theatrics with this all we want, and argue about what is ore and what is not ore, when does ore become something other than ore, and who said what when. That is obviously part of the political process; but at the end of the day what we all want, I presume, is a deal that is acceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess we have gotten off the issue of, what do we want out of this deal? and we have gotten more into the issue of, by what process can we or can we not achieve a deal?

If all we can talk about is, will there or will there not be a deal? then we can talk about that forever. We now have a position in the public media, based on the position of the Official Opposition versus the government, is that what we are talking about now is process. If we are going to talk about a process, the process that I think makes sense is a deal that might be negotiated by the government, subject to the ratification and approval of this House, what I would call a tentative agreement. That is something that is very common. It is very common, Mr. Speaker, that somebody has to sit down and do the negotiations. At the end of the day, the people have the right to make a judgement on any deal that is negotiated.

The Premier has announced tonight that the representative group, on behalf of the people in the House of Assembly - which is a position that seems to have been taken by the Opposition and the position that we took some years ago, that the House of Assembly should have the final say. If there is a resolution before this House of Assembly to approve, or not, a deal, then I think that that meets the test of the people having their say to their elected representatives in the House of Assembly.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I will say I support that approach. If that is the approach that the Premier has announced tonight, then that approach would have my support.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) of the vice-chair, you already spoke.

MR. MANNING: I shouldn't be surprised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker would like to confer with the Table to see whether or not the member has spoken in this debate. The member has spoken once in this Concurrence Debate and by the rules of the House the member can only speak once.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

In Concurrence Debate, it is my understanding where the member is here - we certainly, and I can speak for the Official Opposition, if the Member for Cape St. Mary's wants to take ten minutes to speak to - the Premier says this is a social services debate, why won't he let the Member for Cape St. Mary's speak? It was only yesterday, last week or the week before, every time he stands up he is gabbing at him about his position on Voisey's Bay. Now he does not want to hear it. Let the member speak, I say to the Premier of the Province. Let him speak!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Are you going to give him leave? Let the member stand up for ten minutes and speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I understand that. That has nothing to do with cameras, Premier.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) asking for leave.

PREMIER GRIMES: No, he is not getting leave. He is going to have a special debate and he can say his full piece.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the rules that we have been governed by are Standing Orders. For speaking in Concurrence Debate, it is twenty minutes per member and rotating on that once to speak. We have fulfilled that and there is no need to change it now.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In responding this evening to the debate in the Social Services Committee, I would just like to talk about my department for a short time, especially in relation to some of the comments that the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's made earlier this evening when he said the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair gave a glowing report on health and education, especially as it relates to K-12 and our post-secondary.

He was actually distressed by this. He thought it was terrible that anyone could stand and give a glowing report on matters to do with health and education in this Province. He was absolutely distressed by that. So I feel that really what we need to do here this evening is to reiterate our record of accomplishments, especially as they are outlined by my new Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. The one thing that he did say this evening that I thoroughly agree with is that we are spending money wisely. He said it is important to spend money wisely, and I absolutely agree with him. I would like to demonstrate that, on this side of the House, this government is spending money wisely.

In the new Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education - which now has more than a year under its belt. It has been an exciting first year, a really exciting first year. One of the first initiatives that we had announced in the Speech from the Throne was a new Youth Advisory Committee. Several months after the announcement in the Speech from the Throne, we did put this committee in place. We started off by putting an ad in the paper for all youth in Newfoundland and Labrador, who were interested, to apply; and apply they did. We had hundreds of applications. We now have a very active and vibrant youth committee who are meeting for the fourth time, actually, this coming weekend in the Goose Bay, Labrador area. This committee is gender balanced. It has youth in high school, in post-secondary education; some who have graduated from our university, our private colleges and our College of the North Atlantic; some who are out working in the work force. One young woman is a very avid union member and really is adding a lot to this committee. We also have a disabled person on this committee to bring that perspective, and we have several Aboriginal youth on this committee. So all in all, I have to say, they have been a great advantage to me in an advisory capacity this past year.

I guess one of the other main initiatives that we have done this year is to put in place our new Student Financial Assistance Program. We are very proud of this program. It is a two year effort. We put it in place with a lot of consultation with many stakeholders who are concerned with post-secondary education and the huge amount of debt that some of our students are encountering as they go through their post-secondary education. One of the most prominent pieces of our new Student Financial Assistance Program is our debt reduction grants. By a debt reduction grant we mean students who have to borrow over $165 week, which are mostly students who come from rural areas of our Provinces or students who have to live away from home and thus have to pay the increased cost of their education. Besides tuition and books, they have to cover their costs like rent, heat, light, telephone and so on. So, it is mostly these students who have to borrow a great amount. We put a program in place that says if they borrow above the $165 a week amount, and they meet the criterion of timely completion, that the provincial government will write off all of their provincial debt; all of their provincial debt, which is 40 per cent of their Canada Student Loan.

We also have an enhanced Interest Relief Program. This program matches the federal program so there is no need for confusion when students graduate now and look for interest relief if they are having difficulty getting employment. Now we have the same program as the federal government.

We also announced subsidies for up to fifty students every year in early childhood education. We know that our Province need these skilled specialists. We know that when they graduate they often do not have high income opportunities and are often unable to pay back their student debt and are leaving the profession. So, we decided to subsidize their education to make sure that they are able to pay back and stay in the profession that they have chosen.

We have also increased the amounts that our medical students are allowed to borrow because of the fact that they have increased costs of going to medical school. We know that many of them now are having to borrow extra amounts from the chartered banks and are paying the interest while they are in school and this is really causing them to have an increased amount of debt. So we are allowing them to borrow more than most students would be allowed to.

We also have an enhanced career counselling service. We know that many of our students are finding that when they get at university or college they are not as interested in the course of study they have chosen as they thought they would be. So we are saying to them, before you switch let's have some good career counselling here. Students have asked for this and we have delivered it.

We have also, Mr. Speaker, taken into account that some students are not able to do the full complement of five credits a term, especially students who have special needs, or single parents, or students with disabilities, or students who have encountered severe medical complaints while they are at school. We have decided that they also ought to be eligible for debt reduction grants, but if they pass the exemption process they will be still eligible for the full debt reduction.

We are also very proud this year to have put another 10 per cent equivalent of a tuition reduction in place. As a matter of fact, the meeting will be held tomorrow between the university, my department and the representatives of the MUN student union and the Canadian Federation of Students to decide whether this 10 per cent is best used towards a 10 per cent reduction or not. We hope very shortly to have the opinion back from the committee and I will be announcing it hopefully in the next couple of days. We have also frozen tuition rates since 1999 at CONA, at the College of the North Atlantic, at the Marine Institute, and at our medical school. As all of you would know, last year we implemented a 10 per cent decrease at MUN and we will be doing the equivalent of that in the upcoming year.

Another major initiative of my department in the past year has been the Student Investment and Opportunity Corporation, whereby we have enhanced many of our student employment programs to make them more pertinent to students who are needing good work experience. We know from many of our employers that many of our students are graduating with the appropriate education to pursue their professions but often without pertinent practice. So, we are now working with Memorial and the College of the North Atlantic and with high schools, especially through our SWASP program, to make sure that students graduate not just with a diploma or certificate but also very good work experience.

We are also, I should say, very proud of our excellent post-secondary institutions. We work very closely with the College of the North Atlantic, with Memorial University, and with the private colleges in our Province. We know that all of them are centres of excellence. They stand up to education institutions anywhere in this country. As a matter of fact, this year the College of the North Atlantic won an outstanding international education contract, the largest ever awarded in Canada. We know that within the year, as a matter of fact, starting in September of this year, the nineteenth campus of the College of the North Atlantic will be set up in the State of Qatar. This is more than a $10 million project; $10 million of profit will be made by the College of the North Atlantic on this contract, and it is the largest ever awarded in Canada.

We also, this year, are supporting initiatives to enhance international education to attract students to our Province to study. I was very pleased earlier this year to participate in an announcement in the Corner Brook area, that they have done a lot of work over the past four years to determine that they would like to pursue marketing to international education students to study in the Corner Brook area. I suspect that this is going to be a very successful initiative in bringing more students to that area, and also it will be good for our own students to be exposed to cultures of the world.

We are working very hard right now with the Department of Education on improving career planning courses for all of our students across this Province and to tie them into meaningful work experiences through co-op programs, job shadowing, mentoring, and our SWASP program. We know that our students at high school need more help in helping them decide careers that they would like to pursue.

I would also like to mention the need for skilled trades in the upcoming years. We know, in this Province and across this country, that we are going to need hundreds of thousands of new skilled workers. We know that many of them are in the skilled trades that will be needed in our offshore, will be needed for projects like Voisey's Bay and the Lower Churchill, and will be needed in the construction industry. We want to be able to respond. Not only are we trying to talk to more high school boys about consideration of the skilled trades, but also we would like more young women to be considered in the non-traditional trades for women. We are having some success in that area, especially like programs of women in resource development. They have been a great help to us and we really appreciate the help that they are bringing forward.

But, I would have to say that the most exciting part of the first year of this department's work is working with youth. There are so many exciting programs that we are working on a daily basis with our youth: community youth networks all across our Province; Boys and Girls Clubs; Boy Scouts, Girl Guides; our Duke of Edinburgh's Awards, a very successful program in this Province; Encounters with Canada, that allows a lot of young people every year to travel to the Terry Fox Centre and to gain some incredible experience meeting other students from across our country. We are very proud of the contribution that youth are making to our Province.

I know that on September 11, a lot of the youth were contributing by volunteering to help stranded passengers, especially those who were being housed in the schools around Central Newfoundland, in Goose Bay, in Stephenville, and here in the capital city, St. John's. Groups like Allied Youth spend so much of their time volunteering and making a contribution to the quality of life in our Province.

On behalf of my department and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I want to end by thanking youth for the exciting first year that we have had in our department and for all that they do for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to reiterate this government's support for youth and to say to all of them: We are there for you. We work with you, we invest in your future, and we want to make sure that you have a happy, successful and very good quality of life. We will continue, in the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, to always work with our youth and post-secondary education students to ensure that they have the best that this Province can offer.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to stand tonight to make a few comments during this concurrence debate on social programs. I just want to comment on a couple of pieces of it but, before I do, I want to thank each of the ministers and their staff for having taken the time, and in some cases have come back several times, actually, to provide us with some detailed information about their budgets and their departments and their programs. We appreciate the time and the commitment they have made to helping us gain insight.

I do want to zero in on a couple of things. Let me first take health. I want to talk a little bit about the budget in Health and Community Services. I want to talk about, firstly, the Hay report. We have been raising this issue in the House any number of times, Mr. Speaker, and I think one of the things becomes important. Each time that I have raised this issue in the House, the minister, in response to questions, has continuously told me and told this House that it is not government's report. He cannot withdraw any of the statements in it because it is not government's report. I find it kind of peculiar, Mr. Speaker, when I read particularly page 6. The minister has said that this is not government's report. I just want to read this, Mr. Speaker. On page 6, it talks about how this report was conducted and how the study was conducted, and I will read directly from the report. It says that the project was conducted by consultants, under the direction of the Department of Health and Community Services.

So, yes, the consultants did the report, but it was acting under the direction of the Department of Health and Community Services, and the study received advice from the steering committee. Now, that same page goes on to talk a little bit about the steering committee itself. Here are a couple of interesting phases. It says that the steering committee was responsible for - now, listen to this, Mr. Speaker - directing the execution of the study, and also for reviewing and commenting on interim and final reports.

Any time someone would read what a mandate of a committee would be, any time someone would pick up a report that said: We are creating a steering committee and that steering committee will be responsible for directing the execution of the study - very clearly what that suggests is that this committee had full control over that study. This committee could dictate to the Hay Group what they needed to look at, who they needed to talk to, the data they needed to compile, and what they could write in their report.

Just to ensure the Department of Health and Community Services were able to exercise that degree of control, the committee was chaired by the Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services. So, to ensure the committee had full control of what the Hay Group did, they ensured that the Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services chaired it. Also, on that same committee, we had two assistant deputy ministers.

The irony of this, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister continuously stands in this House and stands before the press outside of the House and tries to suggest that he cannot retract any of the statements in the report; he cannot make any changes in the report, because he had no control of it. Whereas right in the report itself, in the very beginning of the report, on page 6, it clearly indicates that the deputy minister chaired the committee, the two assistant deputy ministers were on the committee, and they had a responsibility to provide direction to the review; they had a responsibility to direct how the review was executed; then they had a responsibility to review all interim and final reports.

Mr. Speaker, if you give a committee a mandate to review an interim report, that would mean that the committee would go through all the comments that are made, regardless of what it might be, and provide some comment and feedback to the consulting group.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that received a lot of criticism in this report was the insulting way that the Hay Group went about making some scathing comments about various professions, whether it was the physicians, nurses, allied health professionals, making comments that bring into question their very integrity, bring into question their professionalism, and bring into question the contribution that they are making to providing quality services at the Health Care Corporation. If, in fact, as this report suggests right here on page 6, there was steering committee that had the ability to edit out that kind of commentary, or at least, if they are not going to edit it out, to at least have said to the Hay Group: Listen, there are six or seven sections in this report where, what you have done, you have really gone out and insulted; you have insulted a group of people. You have insulted the physicians who work in the emergency department of the Janeway. You have insulted each of the chiefs of the divisions, because you have said that their skills in administration are not just lacking, but suggest that they are, in fact, incompetent. They are suggesting that nurses are, in fact, not pulling their weight and not - providing quality care, but not, in fact, working as effectively and as efficiently as they should.

If a committee had the potential to review an interim report, it should have, and could have, if it wanted to, advise the Hay Group to change the way in which it expressed those points; recognizing, Mr. Speaker, that the mandate given to the Hay Group was to look at efficiencies within the system, look at ways in which services and programs could be provided in a much cheaper way, or in a fashion that would not compromise patient care but, at the same time, do it at a much reduced cost. That is the mandate that was given quite clearly. The Hay Consulting Group did not need to resort to making insults and comments, did not need to resort to making disparaging comments about the professionalism and the character of our very capable, competent, dedicated and committed health providers. It did not need to do that. There was a mechanism in place to ensure that did not happen, and that was the mechanism of the Steering Committee, Chaired by the Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services, and also sitting on that committee were two assistant deputy ministers. When they reviewed the report, I assume, Mr. Speaker, that they did have some discussion and consultation with the minister. Then they gave the green light to have the final report issued, which is the document that we have today that is creating such a controversy.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, it is still bothersome that we still have this report out there and the department and the minister has not seen fit to separate itself from all of the disparaging comments that are made, and attacks that were made on individuals and groups of health providers. That is still hanging over the system, creating a high degree of uncertainty. As we talked about some of the budget issues, and talked about the future direction, it was difficult to talk about the future direction of health services in this Province while this report is still out there lingering and doing extensive damage to the good reputations of a lot of our health providers.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other significant things that I want to talk about that came out of the discussions with respect to the Health and Community Services budget is what we are doing in providing services to our seniors. We heard some comments earlier about the changing demographics of the Province, and what has been happening to out-migration. I just want to read you some figures, Mr. Speaker, about really what is happening with the population shift in this Province. This is data that is coming directly from Stats Canada, or being complied by this provincial government, but the source of it is Stats Canada data. I just want to read you a couple of things. In terms of - and this goes back to 1996 and 1997 - the number of people who left this Province, in 1996-1997, there were 6,962 people left Newfoundland and Labrador to go to another Province; in 1997-1998, 7,392; and in 2000-2001, there were 10,600 people left Newfoundland and Labrador. But what is startling, Mr. Speaker, is when I look at the data that profiles the age groups that are leaving. The age is from fifteen to twenty-nine. That is the significant age group that is leaving the Province, and that is our future. These are the young people. These are the people who are best educated. These are the people who provide us the greatest opportunity for continued growth in our population, and these are the people who are leaving. What is happening is that we are left with an aging population.

Looking at that same source of data, in 2002, this year, 12.5 per cent of our population is over the age of sixty-five. In ten years' time, it is going to be 16 per cent of our population. The question then becomes: What are we doing today to prepare ourselves for that kind of population explosion in the age group of sixty-five and up? Mr. Speaker, one of the unfortunate things is, very little.

One of the things we find we have, I think, as some reports would suggest in a recent study of the long-term care beds in St. John's, there is a current study going on about home care services in this Province, but I want to take what we are doing in the provision of long-term care services. We heard statements by the department that we have enough long-term care beds in the Province, and I will not necessarily challenge that statement, but what I would challenge is the notion that we have these beds adequately positioned in the right locations around the Province. I guess that is the big question, Mr. Speaker. I look at my own District of Trinity North, when I see elderly people in Trinity North being, what I would term, mistreated, abused. Then we see people who have to leave places like Southport, Gooseberry Cove, people who are eighty or eighty-five years of age having now to be placed in a long-term care facility by having to go to Grand Bank, or having to go to Carbonear, or having to go to Bonavista. What they find themselves in is a situation where they are in a home some two-and-a-half hours drive from where they have lived all their lives. Their spouse, their husband or wife, is now left back home in that community. Their children, their family and their friends are left there, not being able to visit regularly, not being able to participate and provide the kind of care and love and support that they need at that point in their lives, and they find themselves desperate. They find themselves in a situation where they are very vulnerable, and need to have a lot of care and attention. What is more disappointing, Mr. Speaker, is when we have known this to be a fact for ten to fifteen years. We now know today our own stats agency within the provincial government is telling us today, this is what they project will happen in ten and fifteen years from now. So, we are being told continuously, we had better prepare for the aging population. What are we doing? Absolutely nothing. We have a crying need for a redistribution of the long-term care beds in this Province, and in our own situation in Trinity North, in the district that I represent, we have had for some time a desperate need for long-term care beds and this government has gone for years and years and left that demand unmet. They have ignored the needs of the elderly people in that area. They have ignored their own commitment which they made last year. They made a commitment last year to, in fact, construct a long-term care facility in Clarenville or start the process; but, as of today, Mr. Speaker, not one piece of action has happened, not one single thing has been done other than to re-announce money in the budget. Mr. Speaker, that is desperate.

We talked about the budget allocation for the Health and Community Services Boards in this Province. Every single one of them, Mr. Speaker, last year had a deficit. As my colleague indicated earlier, as he read out the budget deficit, Health and Community Services Boards in this Province last year, Mr. Speaker, had a deficit of $5.6 million. In my own district, the Health and Community Services Board Eastern is projecting about a $1.7 million deficit, all of which, or most of which, Mr. Speaker, can be attributed to the increased demands for home support.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the pressure points in our health system. I understand that is going to continue to grow, and with the kinds of projection that the stats agencies are doing about what we can expect in terms of the demographics of this Province, the aging population that we are seeing, we recognize that there is going to be continued pressures in that area. I understand and appreciate that the minister has now appointed a consultant to look at home care services in this Province, to look at how we can meet the increasing demand.

One of the discouraging things in this budget, Mr. Speaker, we are not allocating enough increased funding for home support this year to even meet last year's levels. We are saying to health boards: Last year we gave you x number of millions of dollars to run your services and provide your programs. We know you had a deficit. We are not giving you any more new money this year but we still want you to continue to provide services to balance your budget - which brings us to the situation that I find almost on a daily basis.

I get calls to my office from constituents, their families, who are saying: My mother is at home by herself. A good example: We have a lady in my district who is in her early eighties. The only person she has to care for her is her young son, who lives at home with her, who needs to be away working. She does not have the ability to care for herself in the home by herself.

When I called on her behalf to the Health and Community Services Board, do you know what I was told? I was told: Because there is no new money in the budget, because we run out of money, there is nothing we can do. The only things we are doing today is dealing with situations where people find themselves in dire straits.

Mr. Speaker, just picture yourself at the ripe old age of eighty-odd, finding yourself unable to care for yourself. Your children cannot come in and help you provide the day-to-day services that you need to help you live; and someone looks at you and says: I don't think you're in dire straits. I do not think this is an emergency. And until we get more money, you are not going to be able to get any support and assistance.

Just picture yourself in that kind of situation, because that is happening on a day-to-day basis in this Province. I find it continuously in my district, and in my role as a Health critic I get calls from around the Province, the same kinds of stories, over and over again.

I think, as a society, one of the things that we get judged by is how we provide for our elderly. All of us here in this House, in our early years, were cared for and nurtured by our parents, supported as we grew, supported in our educational pursuits, supposed in our career pursuits, and these people supported us. They created the Province that we have today, created the environment that we had and enjoyed as we grew up. Now we find ourselves in a situation in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, where we have the ability, as a Legislature, to create the regulation, the legislative framework that puts in place the programs and services to be able to care for those very people who helped create this great Province that we have today, helped provide the nurturing support, the nurturing environment for all of us here in this House as we ourselves started out in life. Now we are looking at our parents and our grandparents and saying: I am sorry. You are not in dire straits, and we are not prepared then to give you any supports and services that will allow you to have some dignity in your remaining years.

Mr. Speaker, that is a sad commentary on what we have become and where we are as a Province and where we are as a society. I think we would be very remiss, as we talk about this budget for Health and Community Services, if we do not comment on that very critical part of our health system that we are not being able to respond to.

I appreciate and understand the minister as he talks about the pressures of our health system. I understand when he talks about the pending announcement and the pending relief of a strategic plan. I say to the minister, and I have said to him in the past, Mr. Speaker, that the time to have a vision, the time to unveil a strategic plan and to provide some direction to the system was long before now. It is long overdue. In fact, we have just had health boards submit budget requests. We have had the minister, just on May 2, send out letters to each board -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just a minute by leave to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I will take just a moment to clue up. I thank you very much.

As I was saying, I suggest to the minister that the strategic plan, that direction, was long overdue, but I would ask him, in the interest of ensuring the stability and certainty in the system, that he not wait any longer. As I understand it, the plan is in draft, it has been reviewed by a number of people. I suggest he should unveil that immediately. The boards will have a better framework in which to respond to his recent request to submit recast budgets. I think, in all fairness to the fourteen boards, they need to have that framework in order for them to respond with their recast budgets.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the permission to conclude and I ask the hon. minister, when he stands, if he might comment particularly about my request for an immediate release of the strategic plan to provide the boards with that framework.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess my skills will be challenged in the next little while to see if I can keep my audience awake for the next fifteen minutes.

I do welcome the opportunity to rise and participate - I see I have lost one already.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: I do appreciate having the opportunity to rise and speak in this debate. I do have to say at the outset that I do want to thank the members of the committee from both sides of the House. I think our committee Estimates were conducted very well. The questioning was certainly very fair and I thought we had a good exchange. It was certainly beneficial to me as a new minister to the department, and I am certainly appreciative of the support that was provided by my officials who accompanied me to the meeting.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the Estimates debate and the questioning in the committee, at the committee stage, there were a number of areas of the Budget that were referenced. There were a number of specifics, and there were certainly general things with regard to the operations of the Department of Health and Community Services.

As all members of this House would be aware, this department is a large department. It certainly has responsibility for the largest part of the provincial Budget - in this year some $1.42 billion in expenditures. Certainly by any standard, a significant amount of money. But, again, keeping in mind as we hear repeatedly in this House on a daily basis, we understand why there is such a large percentage and such a large allocation to the area of health care; because, in fact, it does impact on so many people.

Mr. Speaker, I guess to put it in perspective for hon. members, this $1.42 billion represents some forty-five cents on every dollar of program funding that government has access to. So, certainly when it is suggested that this government is not giving a priority to health care in this Province, I think I would certainly challenge anyone to look at what has happened here and to see that forty-five cents out of every dollar in program funding going into health care certainly speaks volumes to the kind of commitment which government does indeed have to health care in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is also well to note that we came through a period of restraint when a number of departments within government were on a manual basis faced with cuts and reductions. But, during all that period, the health care budget always managed to see some growth. Albeit sometimes it was fairly modest, but nonetheless there was growth. In fact, from May, 1997, it has increased by approximately some $300 million. This year's budget alone to the ten regional institutional boards, the funding has increased by $50 million with an additional $13 million actually going into delivering of the community health programs.

It is fair to say, as the hon. members opposite have referenced and certainly in questioning in the committee stage, that a large part of the increases that have gone in this year have gone in to provide for negotiated increases in the area of salaries. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us all to recognize and remember that being in a position when we can provide a proper level of compensation to the professionals whom we recruit and hire to deliver health care services to the people of the Province is very, very important. It is an important part of the equation. On many occasions in this House, and certainly in the media and in the public generally, we have heard reference and we have heard the debate as it relates to the recruitment and retention of health care professionals. Mr. Speaker, we all have to acknowledge and recognize that there is a competition, it is a competitive market - health. The people who are trained in that field do have other options. They have other areas where they can go, so we have to try to be competitive in terms of the salary program that we do have available. I am pleased to see that, in this year, we have made some significant strides towards placing these people on a pay scale that certainly makes them comparable, certainly for our nurses and many other people working in our health care field, to the Atlantic standard, which I think we have to acknowledge is probably a fair thing to do.

At the present time, we are just now beginning negotiations with the physicians of the Province and, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we will be able, by the deadline which we have set, which will take us to the end of the summer, to conclude an agreement with them as well which will see them, as well, being recognized fairly for the expertise which they provide and the service which they provide to the people of the Province. We will certainly be doing our best to see that they are properly compensated for this very valuable service which they provide.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. members opposite, I am just making a few notes of some of the things that were referenced. The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, in his comments, talked about the giant wait list, as he referred to, for health care services. There is no doubt that in some areas and for some services a wait list is necessary, that you cannot just walk in off the street on any given day and avail of a service. There will be wait lists for certain services. It is also clear, I think, that we have to recognize and acknowledge that we have made tremendous gains in reducing these wait lists, and making essential services, such as cardiac surgery and mammography, services of this nature, available on a more timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, will we ever see a time in this Province when people will be able to walk in and just on demand have these services immediately available? No, I do not think that is a realistic expectation for anyone. It is not a standard or norm that exists anywhere else in this country and, I do not think, even throughout the world. I think people acknowledge - we have to recognize that our goal is to try to make sure that all services are available to all of the citizens of our Province on a timely fashion so that no one will have to endure an undue wait in terms of availing of a necessary service, and I think in an urgent or emergent situation, at the present time we do have the capability and the capacity to respond fairly quickly when situations do arise.

The hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's also made reference to the fact that a request had been made of the Social Services Committee to actually call witnesses in connection with the Hay report. We have heard repeatedly in this House, in the last few weeks since the House has reconvened after our Easter break, a number of references to the Hay report, and there have been a number of questions posed by the critic, the hon. Member for Trinity North, with specifics with regard to that report.

First of all, I will speak to the issue that the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's raised, and that was with regard to having the committee call witnesses. Mr. Speaker, the decision was a decision of the committee but I do have to say that it is a decision with which I concur because quite frankly, if hon. members opposite felt that they wanted to do some questioning, especially with officials from this Province, I am sure a call to the President of the NLMA or to Mr. Peddle or to the President of the Nurses Union - I am sure that if this was a process that they felt they wanted to participate in and if it were a process that they felt would be beneficial, mutually beneficial, then I am sure they would probably agree to do that, but it would seem to me that trying to formalize it from the point of view of having this committee in while they were sitting - to actually require these people to appear before the committee was, I think, a little extreme quite frankly, not something that was really required.

Also, the hon. Member for Trinity North, in his comments this evening referenced - again, his theme throughout has been, in the questioning in the House and here again this evening, that somehow a report of an independent consulting group, a report on the health care system for the City of St. John's, that somehow we should have engaged in that editing process or that somehow we should not have released this report to the public. It is strange, Mr. Speaker, how things change. Not that long ago I sat in this House, as did my hon. colleagues here, and day after day heard repeated requests from members opposite saying that this government was hiding things, that they were not a government that was open, that they would not release reports. Now we see a situation where there is a report out there, a report produced by an independent consultant, and now we are hearing something completely different. Now we are hearing - well I heard the hon. member say tonight, it was the first time I heard him suggest that, he talks about the committee that existed. He actually suggested that they could possibly have done some editing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Well, I would say to the hon. member - I would also suggest to him that he might like to get back to his seat if he wants to engage in debate.

I would say to the hon. member, certainly in terms of the editing, I am sure that this minister had said when the report - or my good friend, who preceded me in that portfolio, had indicated the day that they announced the report was being released - by the way, there are certain sections here that I edited out and maybe we will give it to you with these sections edited. I am wondering what the commentary would have been at that time. I am wondering what the hon. members opposite would have said at that time, and I certainly know what the media would have said if we had said beforehand that we were doing it. I think we have to acknowledge that the report was conducted by an independent consultant group. Again, as the hon. member confirmed here this evening and recognized, they had a very specific term of reference, to look at the financial operations of the board.

Again, in keeping with the hon. Member for Ferryland, who does not like being reminded of the number of times that he stood - I can tell you that I heard him day after day, when he was the health critic, standing up and talking about the number of efficiencies that were to be realized in the health care system. Now, I will not have him on his feet -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, could I have some protection from the hon. Member for Ferryland, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have no worries (inaudible) with you.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the reality is, I think that it has been recognized that - I guess if you look at an operation of the size of the St. John's Health Care Corporation, and for any hon. member opposite or any member of the general public on any occasion to say that an operation of that size, that surely there are efficiencies that might be realized. I, as the minister, do not know, and certainly the officials in my department do not. I guess the logical thing to do would be to engage someone who could take an objective look at it. Again, somebody who could bring to it some sort of expertise, people who are recognized as specialists in that area, people who have done this sort of work internationally and certainly are a very creditable group. As I said, they are recognized internationally and for this reason their services were retained.

Indeed, on the basis of the report that they produced, there are some 119 recommendations which are presently under review by officials of the Health Care Corporation. I am looking forward to hearing back from them by the end of the month and I am hopeful that in the 119 recommendations which have been made - which they have estimated could realize a savings of some $30 million if all 119 recommendations were implemented. I am hopeful that once the review is completed by the officials of the corporation that they will concur that in certain areas there are indeed efficiencies which may be realized, there are indeed savings which may be realized, so that we can then have additional monies that we can reinvest into other areas - that the hon. member and other members opposite have referenced - to sustain things like home support and other programs where we are challenged on a regular basis trying to find additional monies to maintain and expand these programs.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Budget again this year has been increased. It has been increased year-over-year in terms of trying to meet the increasing demands in terms of the health care needs for our Province. It is also worthwhile to keep in mind that in terms of our spending in this Province, on a per capita basis we do actually exceed the national norm. I mean, we do exceed. If you look at the national average the per capita expenditures in this Province, in the area of health care, are higher than the national norm. I think that is significant. I think we have to remind ourselves of that and we have to be mindful of the fact, irregardless of what we may hear from time-to-time, regardless of comments which we may hear in terms of: there is insufficient funding in this area or we are not spending enough there. That in fact, as I indicated earlier, forty-five cents of every program dollar in excess - our average per capita exceeding the national average. That certainly speaks to the level of commitment that this government places in health care, that it is, year over year, the number one priority, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, will continue to be the number one priority for this Province.

Having said that, we have to recognize, and I think it is necessary for us to acknowledge, that at forty-five cents on the dollar we have pretty well reached, in my opinion, as far as we can go in terms of what we can allocate from the program funding that we have available to us. So, that does not leave a lot of options, Mr. Speaker, in terms of trying to respond to the growing demands. If we do not have the capability of finding more money within our own resources, and at the present time, even though we are hopeful that in response to the Romanow Commission we will see the federal government recognize and acknowledge their responsibilities in this area and increase their level of funding. While we are hopeful for that, we cannot operate and run our system on the basis that this might happen. We have to be responsible stewards and try to make sure that we are able to sustain the programs that we are presently offering to the people of this Province. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that all of us involved in the area of health care, all of our different boards, the CEOs, to make sure that we are looking at our budgets closely to determine, in fact, if there are areas where efficiencies can be realized and if, in fact, the money that is being allocated to the various boards is being spent in the best possible fashion to derive the best benefits for the most people in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: I know I am keeping you awake. I can see that.

Mr. Speaker, some of the programs that we recognize -

AN HON. MEMBER: Give me a call when you're finished.

MR. SMITH: I know how the hon. member feels, I endure it everyday when he is on his feet.

Mr. Speaker, just to speak briefly about some of the areas where we are presently challenged. One, as the hon. Member for Trinity North mentioned tonight, is certainly in terms of home support. All of us on a regular basis - I am sure there is not a member in this House who does not get representation from people in their district looking for some additional support in that particular area. In fact, at the present time, with the present level of funding right now at some $60 million, I think it is a significant commitment to that particular program area. Again, I have to say: Have we satisfied all of the needs that are there? No, Mr. Speaker. We recognize that there are still needs there that we are striving to meet and we are hopeful that - and I should mention to the hon. members that as part of the presentation, and some hon. members would be aware, if they had occasion to look at the official presentation which was made by myself on behalf of government to the Romanow Commission, this was one of the areas that we actually suggested the federal government might want to look at as they move forward in terms of doing some further partnering with us in delivering health care to the people of the Province, this whole area of home support. This is an area where they could easily decide to partner with us. We also, in that presentation, Mr. Speaker, I should indicate, did say that we would commit to maintain our level of funding at the present level -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. SMITH: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SMITH: Just a minute to conclude.

Mr. Speaker, we did say in the report that we would be prepared to maintain the level of funding, indeed, if the federal government did decide to come on, at the present commitment which we had, which, as I indicated earlier, is some $60 million which is certainly significant.

The one other area, Mr. Speaker, that I just wanted to basically touch on is the whole area of the drug program. This is a program again which, at the present time, we are expending in excess of some $70 million; but, again, we recognize that this is a program that is under some pressure because we have a number of new pharmaceuticals that are coming on the market. Some of them are proving to be - certainly looking very, very promising. Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize and acknowledge that they do come with a significant price tag. If we are to move forward to try to make these drugs available to people who require them, then we are certainly going to have to find additional ways to get additional monies that we can, in fact, put into that program.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will conclude. Again, I do thank the hon. members for the work which they did in the committee. I thank them for their co-operation, and I thank especially the Chair of the committee for her tolerance in terms of seeing that the proceedings ran smoothly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring some sense to this (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I would just like to bring some sense to this House. I never believed in the power of prayer before, until I realized that after the petitions that we presented in the House over the last couple of days brought some action - or reaction, I should say. Reaction. For the Premier to come in tonight and to get up on concurrence and talk as he talked tonight. I am telling you, the power of prayer and petition just simply amazes me. But I digress, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to go there tonight. I am sure there will be many go there at another time.

I certainly want to speak on the Estimates Committee, the Social Services Committee, to say that I was involved as a member of that committee. I sat in on the Post-Secondary, the Justice and K-12 Education Estimates. I must say that I have to compliment the ministers and their staff for certainly presenting themselves and attempting to respond to the questions of the Estimates - and not only questions but there were some preambles and there were some debates. All in all, I was very, very pleased with being given the opportunity to address the different departments.

There was, I would say, Madam Speaker, a sense of disappointment, however, that the Estimates Committee certainly could not be extended to accommodate a request from the Opposition that additional individuals who do play such an important role, I say, in the health care policy, were not permitted, not given the go-ahead, to appear before the Estimates Committee to go deeper into the health care policy and procedures. The vote was put forth but, of course, it was the government members that voted against such a move.

Again, that was a sense of disappointment on my part, that I was not given the opportunity to, like I said, go deeper into the Estimates by bringing in a range of guests, I suppose you would call them, that would have added so much more to our understanding of how the health care policies were put together, how the Estimates were put together, and how they consult with outside parties, I would say.

As well, I was kind of disappointed because, in dealing with the Estimates, it appeared that members of the committee, government members of the committee, felt that three hours was enough to deal with any Estimates of any department. There seemed to be, I should say to you, a reluctance on the part of the government members to go beyond three hours initially, but as time went on these members realized that the purpose of the Estimates was to fully debate, fully question, all aspects of the Estimates of the Budget as was outlined in the document.

I must say, the government members of the committee were not too fussed about going beyond three hours, but the minister and staff, we did not hear a complaint from them. They were only too glad, I found, to come back and to extend the Estimates for not only three hours but beyond three hours. We were most appreciative of the co-operation that we got from the ministers and their staff.

I would just like, Mr. Speaker, if I could, just to take each one separately. Like I said, I was involved in Post-Secondary, Justice, and K-12, Education. On the Justice, again, it is not an area that I am overly familiar with but I found it quite interesting as we went back and forth - I see the Minister of Justice over there now- as we started questioning the minister and his staff. I must say, I was certainly pleased with the manner in which they attempted to, I guess, inform us as to their policies, procedures, budgets and that sort of thing. There are just a couple of things I would just like to bring up, that I brought up at the Estimates Committee. I think it is something that the whole House should certainly look at as well.

There were a couple of things. One would be the policing in the Province. Of course, the minister was questioned - I questioned the minister - on the type of policing that is going on in our Province. Of course we know there is the RCMP and the RNC, and they have different jurisdictions, but there were two aspects of policing that certainly I brought up. Again, just to reiterate the point, one is the highway patrol of the RCMP. Many of us are quite aware that, from St. John's to Port aux Basque, and I assume in the Labrador area as well, it is only probably maybe a dozen officers of the RCMP who are dedicated to highway patrol. It is certainly not enough, and the RCMP themselves would admit that it is not enough. I can tell you how important it is to have law enforcement on our highways.

I also brought in - because I attended the insurance forum that had been put together by, I believe, the Government Services and Lands Minister. It was during that insurance forum that many of the speakers were talking about the necessity to have good enforcement, especially on the highways. We also know that the RNC in the St. John's area certainly have put together a unit to deal specifically with highway infractions. That is an area that we asked the minister to look at and to try to address in getting more policing.

The second type of policing that I drew to the minister's attention was the aspect of community policing. We know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When it comes to community policing I have been getting reports that it is very difficult to get police officers to visit schools, to partake in the different organizations, to be around youth, to be available. The reason being is that they have to do it on their own time, and because they have to do it on their own time obviously it gets difficult for them to juggle their shifts to make themselves available. These types of policing are certainly two that really need to be looked at.

The other thing, with regard to Justice, was dealing with the detention centres in our Province. The reports say that there is overcrowding in Her Majesty's Penitentiary, as well as the Youth Centre in Whitbourne. Again, the minister addressed that in indicating that there are times when, simply, the number of detainees outstrip the available spaces, the cell spaces or the rooms, the bunks, whatever you might say. Oftentimes they are doubled up, or more, in trying to accommodate it. Again, the minister has explained, that is not a regular occurrence but anomalies at different times of the year at different places.

The other aspect of course - from a district perspective, because the Youth Centre is in my District of Whitbourne-Harbour Main. I looked at and asked the minister to see what the effects the Remand Centre, or the Remand Youth I guess, being placed in Whitbourne has done with regard to employment, especially employment within the District of Whitbourne itself. Many of my constituents who work at the Youth Centre have been displaced because they have gone, in some cases, from permanent to casual because of the influx of the workers from the Remand Centre which is in the process of being closed down. Again, very interesting to not only ask questions during that Estimates Committee, but certainly to hear the responses from the Justice Minister and his staff.

The second area, and the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary spoke a little bit earlier - very interesting comments regarding post-secondary. Again, just a couple of concerns that I would like to bring to the attention of the members in the House. With regard to post-secondary, it is a problem that I have seen develop over the last decade or so as there was a move to different careers, trades if you want to call it, where we have gotten away from some of the basic trades of carpentry, plumbing, and there was a big surge for IT during the 1990s. Right now, there is a question as to how prepared or how good we are at preparing our young people for the skills that are going to be needed in the not so distant future. There are a couple of aspects of it. One is the transition, I guess, from the secondary to the post-secondary. It is an important one because some very poor decisions had been made during that particular time.

When you are going from Level III or Grade 12 into post-secondary, in many cases some of the youth are choosing paths that they are not well suited to. They are getting into a year or two years, and they are (inaudible). We know that in Newfoundland, believe it or not, we have one of the highest rates in Canada of people entering into post-secondary; one of the highest rates. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have one of the lowest rates of people actually finishing their program. So, there is something going on there. We need some good cooperation between the secondary and the post-secondary with regard to counselling, with regard to guidance, with regard to really firsthand assistance to make sure that our students coming out of secondary, going into post-secondary, are making good, good decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Six minutes? Okay.

The minister also mentioned the tuition reduction, and a discussion was going to take place within the next couple of days. I think it is important that we realize that money which the government has put towards MUN to reduce the tuition, certainly should be used for the benefit of the students. It has to go for the benefit of the students, no doubt.

The third area that I certainly would like to speak about, and the one that is most near and dear to my heart, would of course be the K-12 system. Again, we spent about six hours I think talking and discussing the estimates of the K-12 system. Again, there were some bright spots, there is no doubt about that, but one of the most disturbing parts of it, of course, deals with two - and I will just deal with two because my time is running out. I think in the Budget Debate of the future I certainly will get an opportunity to speak a little bit more.

There are two things, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to draw attention to. One - and I believe one of the hon. members from the other side referred to it earlier - that is the teacher allocation. Now, the teacher allocation means that this particular year will see a loss of 208 teachers. What is disturbing about that, Mr. Speaker, is that the impact of the loss of 208 teachers is certainly up for grabs. Unfortunately, when you look at the loss of teachers, in many situations it also means a loss in programming. That is the problem that one has to look at. I am not convinced that the loss of teachers is not going to cause a loss of programming.

Also, we have to be very, very careful about the layoff of teachers, simply because of the difficulties that we are having in recruiting and retaining teachers. The loss of 208 teachers is going to affect the programming that can be given in schools throughout our Province. Already we are hearing, or at least I am hearing, that some choices will have to be made between music, phys. ed, and perhaps art, as teachers are relocated around a particular school district.

The second thing - and I will leave on this note - deals with public exams. The cut of Math 3205 has given a lot of people cause for concern. There has to be faith in public exams, and to cut a public exam late in the year, less than a month away from the actual writing of this exam, certainly shows that there are extreme difficulties with regard to the curriculum surrounding that particular exam, leading into that particular exam. Public exams were cut something like five years ago. Untimely ripped, is what I would say, Mr. Speaker. They were untimely ripped at that particular time by the then Minister of Education, who is the Premier today, and they were ripped out of the system because it was said that they were not needed; that they could get by without them.

Now we have, five years later, an attempt being made by the current minister to try and put public exams back into the system. I might say that a good job has not been done in reintroducing the public exams. This being the second year, and we have not written the second batch of them, but in the first batch of them we had serious problems with Thematic Literature and Academic Math 3200, to the point that there were students last year who did not get a fair deal with regard to assessment and evaluation. And as a result, did lose out on placements in universities or post-secondary institutions, did lose out on scholarships, and in some cases had to repeat courses simply because poor planning had gone into the implementation of those particular exams.

Mr. Speaker, there are certainly other concerns that I could bring to this House with regard to the Estimates on Education. I will save those for another time, but I will say that the blueprint was given for school reform back in the early 1990s. If you go back to the early 1990s, when you see reports from the Williams report of 1992, the Canning report of 1996 and a whole series of reports from the NLTA and other interest groups, the blueprint certainly was there. But, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that -

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, to just clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: I would say that certainly it was an experience to be part of the Estimates Committee. I do congratulate the minister and her staff for providing the Committee with answers. I enjoyed working with my colleagues on both sides of the House in that Estimates Committee, and I would thank everyone for their co-operation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to concur on the report of the Social Services Committee?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: All 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; 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; Mr. Mercer; Ms Hodder; Mr. Andersen; Ms Jones; Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Sullivan; Ms 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, 23 ayes and 17 nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 4, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 4.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. ( Bill 4)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 5, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 1.

Motion, third reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Environmental Protection." (Bill 1)

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak at third reading of this bill. I have a few remarks that I want to make because it is very interesting that the government would choose to bring in this bill at 11:45 on a Tuesday night, in the dead of night; legislation concerning the environment of this Province, when this government sees fit to ignore the environmental protection of a very important place in this Province, a provincial park known as Windmill Bight Provincial Park.

In fifteen minutes they are all going to turn into pumpkins over there, because this legislation is treating the Windmill Bight Provincial Park like the Cinderella of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not important enough, Mr. Speaker, for this government to protect. In fact, it is so unimportant to this government that they are prepared to spend $2.7 million of public money to turn it into a golf course. The legislation that is designed to protect our environment is being ignored and, instead of using the legislation to provide an Environmental Impact Statement, the minister comes up with whole new terms and terminology not provided for in the legislation at all, a so-called environmental protection plan which he says is going to guarantee the protection of this particular space.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you can protect a space when what you are planning to do with the space is not protect it at all, but instead change it from an open space, from a wilderness space, from a special protected area, into a golf course; golf courses being well-known as one of the most environmentally unfriendly kinds of development, to the extent the golf course was prevented from being built on Thorburn Road, here in St. John's, because it was in part of the watershed for the St. John's water system of Windsor Lake. It was miles away from it but they were not allowed to build a golf course there because it was in the watershed and it was potentially damaging to the drinking water for the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, how they think that a so-called environmental protection plan is going to protect this wilderness area from the effects of this golf course is beyond me. It is very clear the main proponent of this golf course, the former Premier, the wannabe Member of Parliament who has now been defeated, he was the one who was behind this, providing the conviction and convincing the government to put up the money to take the system out of the protected areas, to have this government take it out of the park, to build a golf course that apparently, even according to the report and according to the submissions made by the proponents, is not going to be viable. It is not going to be viable unless it can attract golfers from outside of the Province to the tune of 50 per cent to 75 per cent by its own report.

Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem in this Province with the viability of existing golf courses. Just last year the Department of Provincial Affairs provided some $50,000 to the Blomidon Golf and Country Club for operating expenses. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Blomidon Golf and Country Club itself, which has been well established for many years in the City of Corner Brook on the West Coast of Newfoundland, where they have other resorts and other attractions and other activities, cannot make a go of it without $50,000 from this government in operating expenses, why is this government choosing to take a particular important part of our environment - that is there for all of us, Mr. Speaker, there for all of us, but because a handful of people in this area of the Province want to put a golf course on an environmentally sensitive area, a rare resource, this government has gone along with for petty political reasons.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said by the Premier and others that the people of that area support the golf course. Well, that is not what has been discovered by people who go out in that district, who talk to the ordinary people who live in the area of that golf course. They are not supportive of the golf course. They see it as a rich man's game. They see it as something for the benefit of a few and not for the benefit of all of the people of that district. That money, Mr. Speaker, there are many better uses for that money for the development in that district. If the people were given a choice, instead of this government responding to the needs of a few people, a handful of people who have their own idea of what they want for themselves and have been promoting this idea for ten years, this government would not support this golf course; would not put public money behind this golf course; would not choose to destroy a valuable ecological resource; would not choose to take what is considered by many people in the know, the scientific community, people who understand wilderness and wildlife, biologists, people in the minister's own department who have recommended that a full environmental assessment be done. All these people are being ignored, Mr. Speaker, because of the political expediency that this government is choosing to adopt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I realize we are talking here in the dead of night. I realize that this government is not listening to this. I realize that we are not on TV, Mr. Speaker, but it must be said and it has to be said, that this government is failing the people of this Province in the issue of the Windmill Bight golf course, former provincial park. This government should take advantage of the fact that they no longer have to look after Mr. Tulk. They no longer have to look after the fact that Mr. Tulk promoted this idea, and they can now do the right thing. They can now say that they are reconsidering this. They can now really expect that if there is going to be an environmental protection plan, that it is going to have to be one that is going to protect the environment. The only way to protect that environment, Mr. Speaker, is not to build a golf course and to use the $2.7 million for something else.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just heard the Premier saying he hopes I will speak all night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this Environmental Protection Act as well. There are a couple of issues that have come up recently. One of them is the tire recycling program. We now see the tire recycling program without any planning. There is very little planning put into the tire recycling program. We hear a number of tire retailers, existing tire recyclers, complaining, upset, disturbed about the tire recycling program; supposedly a good program, a great idea, an idea we asked government to implement a couple of years ago, but we see people complaining about this program because of the fact the proper planning, the proper measures, were not put in place upfront to ensure that it would go smoothly.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk a little bit about Windmill Bight. The reason I want to speak about that, we are not against any economic idea or any plan to be put forward that would create jobs in any area of the Province. That is not the issue. We are not against any type of plan that would create employment in rural Newfoundland but we are against having government completely cut out the environmental assessment, completely cut out having a full environmental assessment on Windmill Bight.

In 1997 government privatized a number of parks. We were guaranteed, in 1997, there would be no more privatization of parks. We were told in 1997, Mr. Speaker, that Windmill Bight was a protected area, because of the ecological sensitivity of the area. We were told that would be protected, but we now see some eighty hectares of land removed from Windmill Bight's protected ecologically sensitive area. We also see that program, that process, that business plan pushed through, completely removed from full environmental assessment. That is what we are against. We feel that if it had gone through a full environmental assessment, if there were any concerns, they would have been pointed out. If there were any concerns, any problems, they would have been highlighted. They could have been dealt with, but instead government decides to remove it from full environmental assessment. By doing so, they ram it through and nobody in the general public have the ability to speak out and say whether they are in favour of this or against it.

People like Bill Montevecchi, the Protected Areas Association, the Natural Heritage Society, we do not have the advantage of being able to have them speak into the record to say whether or not they are in favour or against this; to highlight their concerns, so that those concerns can be addressed. Instead, we see the minister use his discretion to push through a decision on this new legislation. That is one of the concerns that we had with this new legislation all along, that it will give the minister far more discretion to speak out, to cut short, to cut out environmental assessments, to make decisions that are not always in the best public interest.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Environmental Protection," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill1)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.