The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today seven students from Brother T. R. Murphy Centre and they are accompanied by Ms Eileen Brazil.

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 congratulate Jessica Letto and Jody Belben from Mountain Field Academy in Forteau. They recently received gold medals in the Regional Heritage Fair which was held in Gunner’s Cove.

These two students depict what life was like for the women of Newfoundland and Labrador throughout history. Their presentation contained three aspects: a model, a video and clothing of that time. Their model included some of the traditional tools that were used to perform household chores such as galvanized wash tubs and scrubbing boards, and I am sure all members in the House can recall those times in their own homes and in their own families.

The video showed how women lived and worked in the 20^th century. While they themselves were dressed in the traditional clothing of that period, they portrayed the pride and respect of women’s place in society during that time.

Jessica and Jody will participate in the National Heritage Fair which will be held in St. John’s from July 8-15. This fair gives the students a unique way of interacting with others across Canada. Each province and territory can send fifteen people to this fair. The students attending will receive the opportunity to experience the unique heritage that Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Jessica and Jody on the magnificent work that they have done and to encourage them to keep it up. I also want to ask hon. members to welcome all the students from across the country who will join us in July and wish all the participants in the National Heritage Fair well as they pursue their specific projects.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to inform the House of a special celebration that happened this past weekend, where myself and the Government House Leader were fortunate to attend. It was the opening of the Island View Citadel, a Salvation Army citadel in Musgravetown which includes the Musgravetown-Bloomfield Salvation Corps.

This particular Salvation Army Corps decided, a little over three years ago, that they were going to build a new citadel and they went forward to have fundraisers to help pay for their dream. In less than three years 181 families have raised in excess of $600,000 towards this new Salvation Army Citadel. At the particular service that happened on Sunday night the collection plate was passed around and the congregation in that building, that night, donated $21,800 to put in a collection plate to help pay for the cost of the new Salvation Army Citadel.

Mr. Speaker, in order to have any successful building committee or any challenge that you take on you must have leaders. Today I would like to stand and recognize Captain Ross Grandy and his wife Captain Doreen Grandy for the leadership that they have provided and a lesson, I guess, that we can learn from those people stepping up, responding to a need, and exercising, not only a love of labour, but an exercise of inclusion as well because everybody within the community, whether they are Salvation Army people or other religions, have all felt a part of what this group of people have done in order to worship the Lord in that particular area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to inform hon. members that Angela Chaisson, a seventeen year old Level II student at Herdman Collegiate in Corner Brook, is Newfoundland and Labrador’s Lester B. Pearson scholarship winner for the year 2002.

This scholarship, valued at $27,000 will cover the costs of tuition, books and accommodations while Angela attends two years of study at the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific in British Columbia, a college which is dedicated to the promotion of international understanding by creating an environment in which students from many countries and cultures are brought together to study and serve the community.

Students graduating from this program graduate with an International Baccalaureate, which is the equivalent to first year university at colleges and universities throughout North America.

Angela was selected by a selection committee comprising representatives from the Department of Education, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers’ Association, school districts and private industry benefactors. She was selected on the basis of her academic achievements and her qualities of character made evident in a detailed application and personal interview.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second consecutive year that a student from my district has won this prestigious award. Last year’s winner, Amy Pieroway, will be returning this September for her final year. Amy is a graduate from Pasadena Academy.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Angela Chaisson, the 2002 Lester B. Pearson Scholarship winner for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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.

Mr. Speaker, there are many health issues facing people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Every year in this Province, 350 women are diagnosed with breast cancer. Women facing this disease often find great value in the support of other women who have been there; other women who have or are living with cancer. However, such valued support is not always possible for women in the many rural or isolated communities of our Province.

Women living with breast cancer in this Province have found a unique and wonderful way to support each other through this challenging journey. For the third consecutive year, a provincial breast cancer retreat will be held in this Province. This year’s event will take place at The Salvation Army Twin Ponds Camp just outside Gander from June 14-17. Women from all across our Province will come together once again to share their wisdom, fears, laughter and tears.

In its first year the retreat welcomed sixty women. With the success of that event, the registration for the second retreat last year grew to 120. This year, the organizers believe they will increase their numbers again with expectations of up to 200.

As always, any event of this magnitude does not happen without a great amount of cost being associated with it. Meals, accommodations and transportation can be expensive for some of our people. The hope of the organizers is to be able to cover as much of the cost as possible so that any woman can attend regardless of financial ability.

I ask all members of the House today, and anyone in the public, to support this worthwhile cause. Maybe someone in your family, or a friend, has had to face the breast cancer challenge. Encourage them to attend this retreat and share their story. Maybe someone in your family or a close friend did not win the battle with breast cancer. My own sister, Mary, lost her thirteen-month battle with the disease on June 26, 2000, at the age of forty-eight. I always donate to this cause thinking of her.

If you are willing to assist financially with the retreat, please contact the Canadian Cancer Society here in St. John’s. If you are not in a position to assist financially, I ask you to remember those women in your prayers as they continue sharing and caring with each other as they move forward in hope and love.

I also ask all members to join with me in congratulating the organizers of this very worthwhile project and to wish all participants a very successful, peaceful and rewarding weekend.

Good luck to all involved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of a valuable program which has promoted the active engagement of young people in the arts through school-based projects. The program seems to integrate art in the standard school curriculum through active participation.

The ArtsSmarts Program is a national initiative which was launched in 1998 by the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation. The Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council administers the program for this Province.

Through this national program, Newfoundland and Labrador has received significant funding which has allowed 200 career artists to work with over 8,400 students and 370 teachers throughout this Province.

Twenty of the forty-nine schools which applied this year received funding, including two schools from my own district: Paradise Elementary and Beachy Cove Elementary. These two schools will benefit from the experience of artists like Barbara Pratt Wangersky, Julia Pickard, Elizabeth Tucker and others who will work with the students.

Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the House to join with me in congratulating the ArtsSmarts program and the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation on their continued success, and encourage them to continue working with the youth of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From April 30 to May 18, the Canadian Association for Community Living held their eighteenth consecutive yearly fundraising Bowling Tournament in Labrador West to raise money and awareness of persons with disabilities in the community.

This year’s tournament was the largest ever with ninety-one teams registered, with 360 participants.

I would like to thank the local businesses in Labrador West for the many prizes donated to the tournament, particularly Marilyn Ryan of Provincial Airlines who donated a return trip for two anywhere they fly.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Environment.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, after a wonderful long weekend, it looks like hon. members opposite are a little deflated. Somebody must have let the air out of their tires.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of tires, this government has spent years pulling together a tire recycling program which, once again, is borrowing a Tory policy from back in 1999. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, once again, they did not implement it properly. The project has been flawed from the very beginning and can only be described as yet another example of blatant government mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, given the significance of this blunder, wouldn’t the minister agree that an investigation of this incident is warranted, and will he allow the Auditor General to review the entire tender process, including the contract award and efforts to implement the project so that it does not occur again in the future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, first off, this is a policy that we have been pushing for the last five or six years as a government. So it is not a policy that was taken from anywhere else, number one. Number two is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: If the Opposition wants to blame whoever, that is up to them. We are undertaking to get the policy to work. So the contractor could not fulfil the obligations set out. We are now going to make a decision in the next day or so about the process to get this policy to move. We are going to do that. I have already asked for a review of the process itself and that is being undertaken, as to the process that occurred. We are going to proceed with the policy and put it in place and make sure that this works for the environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess if the minister had not been recycled himself, maybe it might have been done right if the Acting Minister of Human Resources was involved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this entire contract has been mishandled from the beginning. Routine commercial checks through Dun and Bradstreet and even with its own Department of Justice could have revealed that lawsuits and fraud charges, which were pending against municipal recyclers and Harry Spurrell, would have been revealed.

Would the minister tell this House, were routine procedures followed in conducting a credit check? And if not, why not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the normal routines were followed, but I have already asked for further review. The Auditor General is reviewing the Multi-Material Stewardship Board. So if the Auditor General wants to review the contract on how it was allocated, we have no problem with that. There is no problem with that. The bottom line though is that - and I am not into, and we are not into over here, assessing blame to a company or contractor in trying to get them convicted about something that is in a different procedure. We evaluated the proposals. They were evaluated by officials and there were recommendations given. What we have to do now is move forward with the policy and get it implemented for the benefit of the environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the minister I will repeat my question and ask him if routine checks were done by the department with Dun and Bradstreet, and with his own Department of Justice, to ascertain whether in fact there are any pending lawsuits or charges against Harry Spurrell and Municipal Recyclers? Was the check done? That is all I am asking, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to get the exact detail of all the checks that were done, and again to say that processes were followed that are normal in the evaluation process. I will undertake to get more detail on that. Secondly, the Auditor General has been reviewing the Multi-Material Stewardship Board and is reviewing the contracts, my understanding, and we will just check that to make sure.

Again, what we are going to do is proceed to go forward, to implement the policy, to make sure that this policy works, that it works for the benefit of the environment and it works for the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if this government cannot even manage a tire recycling contract how can we trust them to negotiate a multi-billion dollar deal on Voisey’s Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Multi-Material Stewardship Board indicated to the media last week that he had no idea how much money has been collected to date from the $3 charge. I would ask the minister: How much money has, in fact, been collected to date? If Mr. Seabright is not privy to this information isn’t this yet another example of poor contract administration?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we can undertake to get those numbers and details from the Multi-Material Stewardship Board. That is not a problem. We will get those numbers.

Again, the contractor could not fulfil the contract. I must say, given the encouragement from the other side during that process, I am not surprised, as they tried to rip down, as they attempted to rip down the company in public. They ripped the company down in public, in the public eye, in this House, and now we are here doing it again today.

Mr. Speaker, the contractor has now withdrawn from the contract. It is a good environmental policy and we will be, very shortly, undertaking to get the policy up and running and working well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, for an old retread government, they are not having a good year, are they? Not at all, no.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister again: Is the minister telling this House that he does not know, to date, how much money has been collected by this government on the $3 charge? Yes or no, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of every copper that we have over at the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board for our recycling program. On the tiring recycling, I am not sure down to the dollar. That is why I am saying to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that when I get those numbers - and I will get them right quick; there is no problem to get them - I will have them for him and he will have them very shortly, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. They do not even know how much money has been collected. I cannot believe that we just got this answer from this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the people that, when he finds out, if he finds out, if he knows, will the hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been collected over the last two months be returned to the people of this Province? Or will it go into general revenues and be used like the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was used, to offset the mismanagement of this government? Is that what it is going to be used for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, he is making more politics. The Leader of the Opposition is making more politics out of this. We are trying to resolve the issue in a serious way to make it work as a policy. The dollar figures of what we have collected, we will have that for him. I am not the accountant for the MMSB. We will get the numbers and we will bring them and make sure they are fully aware. The money is collected. It is in a trust fund. It will be used for the program.

In the next day or so, the details of how we will unveil the rest of this program and how we intend to go forward will be announced. I said that earlier. I will say it again, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are not playing politics in this House. We are here to get answers to reasonable questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the only place that we can get answers is from the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, and they are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. We cannot even find out how they came up with the $3 number for the tax.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House and the people of the Province why this group is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act? Or is this just another way of his open and accessible government keeping information from the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this government is more open and accountable than any government in the history of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: So, we do not need any lessons from the Leader of the Opposition or the other side about that issue. No problem.

On that, we are looking at right now, making the MMSB - make sure that it comes under the guidelines of our Freedom of Information Act. We just amended and changed the Freedom of Information Act, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at that right now, as a matter of fact, as one of the changes we are going to bring. We are also looking at a restructuring of the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. We will have recommendations on that very shortly, Mr. Speaker, and we have a whole list of new environmental initiatives that we are looking at which can be positive for the environment, including this one, as soon as it is straightened out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Environment could explain to me how an environmental cleanup of transformers containing PCBs at the Makinsons site, that were supposed to have been disposed of properly, a project that was paid for by government, how those transformers could be disposed of at the New Harbour dump site, leaving workers vulnerable, leaving the general public at risk, people who use the landfill site, people who swim and fish nearby? How could that happen on a project that was supposed to have been paid for and overseen by the Department of Environment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the alarmist critic is back. The alarmist critic is back again. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, he is at it again.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is, the PCBs from the Makinsons cleanup, the scrap material, was cleaned of PCBs before it was transferred to the waste disposal site. But, again, the concerns that were expressed by the individual who was concerned about the New Harbour dump site - I asked the officials again this morning to give me some more details about that situation, even though I have been advised that they were cleaned before the material was sent, Mr. Speaker. Even with that, I have asked them to get me a little more detail about the whole process and the transfer of the material.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John’s South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

That is absolutely not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will ask the minister this: Minister, there were workers on that site, at the New Harbour dump site, who will admit to the fact that people went in and removed the casings from the transformers to be used as stoves, to be used as distribution boxes for their septic systems. They have even removed the PCBs from those transformers to be used as chainsaw oil.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: How could that happen on a project that was supposed to have been paid for and overseen by this provincial government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, he has now raised these new points. We will have them checked and have them reviewed, Mr. Speaker. The officials advise me that the process was, that site was cleaned up along with the material. The member has raised a couple of concerns here. I will have them checked out, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John’s South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I will ask the minister this: Considering there were transformers containing PCBs dumped at the New Harbour dump site, will the minster tell us when that site will be properly cleaned a second time - that these PCBs were supposed to be cleaned and paid for by government - when that site will be properly cleaned to protect the general public who use that site and who fish and swim nearby?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have already announced a waste management plan to deal with the 200-odd landfills that we have in the Province. That is why we have announced the program, that is why we have announced the policy, and this summer a number of these landfills will be shutting down as we go forward and find new alternative sites.

Mr. Speaker, I assure him that this one is already on our radar screen to get rid of as quickly as we can, to deal with it. We have already said that publicly three or four weeks ago, and we look forward to having a number of our landfill sites shut down and proper landfill sites built and located in the proper locations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John’s South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

People who are using this site cannot wait for the normal process to take place. They cannot wait until 2010 when this process will be complete and this landfill closes down. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again, considering the fact there are supposed to be PCBs dumped on that site will you take it upon yourself to ensure that this site is cleaned up as soon as possible? Give us a time frame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing they are not playing politics with the environment. That is all I can say. Let me tell you, yes, we have already indicated that to the Opposition critic. As a matter of fact, there is a waste management study underway as we speak with recommendations coming within the next thirty to sixty days. So I can assure him, it is high on our radar screen. We intend on dealing with that one, plus many more sites in this Province, and cleaning up our environment for the good of the place.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For years we have seen foreign fishing fleets continue to fish outside the 200-mile limit taking many species, excessive amounts of fish, that are under moratorium. We have demanded action by the federal government and finally, earlier this year, we have seen the federal government take some action, albeit insufficient, and close our ports to the Faroese and Estonian fleets.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Fisheries today: In view of the fact that he has supported this action in the past, does he continue today to support the action of the federal government to close our ports to fleets who overfish outside the 200-mile limit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the hon. member opposite asked me that question a month or so ago. I certainly have made representation, both publicly and privately, to the federal minister telling him that he did indeed do the right thing; and, no, I have not changed my mind. The fact of the matter is, the Faroese were overfishing their quotas in the 3L area. I understand that they were supposed to have fished for roughly six days to catch their quotas and they fished in excess of 100 days last year. Instead of taking sixty-eight tons of shrimp they took somewhere in the area of 1,000 tons of shrimp. I said it publicly before and privately to the minister, and I haven’t changed my mind, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the new MP for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception is the Premier’s good friend and the good friend of the Minister of Fisheries here. He is on his way to Ottawa today and is being sworn in, and his first order of business is to present a petition to the House of Commons demanding the reopening of Canadian ports to Estonian and Faroese fleets. In view of this, I ask the minister, what are his plans to deal with this action? Does he have any plans to contact his counterpart, his former friend, the MP for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, and raise to him the concerns of the people of this Province on the action that he has taken and urge him to change his stand and urge him to demand more vigilance on the part of the federal government on this front?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, like the hon. member opposite said, the new federal MP for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception is indeed a friend of mine, but like all good friends, we sometimes have a difference of opinion and we have one on this issue. I think that the federal minister made the right decision when it came to closing the ports to the Faroese. I understand that is having a negative impact on a couple of towns in the federal member’s riding and that he is doing what he can for his constituents, which I would expect him to do so. But, Mr. Speaker, that does not change my mind or the government’s stand on the need to stop foreign overfishing on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks. Again, I say, we support the federal minister and his stand against closing ports to the Faroese.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Almost every time that I have stood in this House in the past couple of months and asked questions on foreign overfishing the minister has asked me to come onboard, to stand with him and fight the same fight on foreign overfishing. So, I will ask the minister today, will he ask his former colleague, his cousin who is in Ottawa today, to stand with him and stand with the people of this Province, to stand up against the foreign overfishing that devastates many communities in this Province, not just the community of Bay Roberts?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception certainly understands where I stand on this issue and the members in the House of Assembly. Again, I would like to thank the hon. member for coming onboard and maybe he can let the member in Ottawa know because yes, Mr. Efford knows my position and he has chosen to take the one to look out to the interests of the people in his district, but that does not change our view. We still agree with the federal minister in closing those ports.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Tourism.

On April 18, I asked the minister why Labrador was omitted from a national magazine advertising campaign and she assured me that Labrador would be a part of future marketing. This past weekend Rendez-vous Canada 2002 in Halifax had over 250 tourism buyers from more than fifty countries around the world. There were three separate tours arranged to visit this Province with thirty-nine tourism buyers and media representatives. Among the three sites visited where: St. John’s, Cape Spear, Witless Bay, Signal Hill, Deer Lake, Gros Morne, L’Anse aux Meadows, Rocky Harbour, Woody Point and others. Despite the Access North-Labrador 2000 campaign, with Labrador being the focus, not one stop was made in Labrador. While in L’Anse aux Meadows the tour could have, and should have - at least, I say to the minister - visited the Basque whaling station at Red Bay and the Moravian Mission in Labrador.

I ask the minister why, especially with the focus on Access North this year, was the opportunity to introduce worldwide tourism buyers to Labrador firsthand not part of the tour, particularly when your department contributed towards the cost of this tour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member has identified two separate marketing initiatives which took place over the last few days, the Rendez-vous Canada, which was taking place in Halifax this weekend and continues on. During that event buyers come from all over the world to look at the products that are available and to determine whether there is something that could be of interest to people who are planning vacations and other leisure travel, and, Mr. Speaker, at that event we had representatives from my department who were promoting all parts of the Province and were available for meetings with people who attended that event to familiarize them with things that all of this Province had to offer, including Labrador.

The other point that was mentioned was that there were three familiarization tours which were taking place in the Province during this past week, and those tours were arranged, again, between staff and individual companies or individuals, and it is for the purpose of providing them with a first-hand view of certain parts of the Province, perhaps that they have expressed an interest in, in order to lure them to the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, we promote Labrador in all cases when we are promoting other parts of the Province, but in these cases alone Labrador was not on the itinerary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the minister, the ads that ran in the last magazines of Maclean’s and Time cost probably in the neighbourhood of $300,000 with no mention of Labrador. Now this tour is taking place with no stops in Labrador. What is your department’s commitment to promoting tourism in Labrador in a year that your government has designated Labrador as the tourist destination, the Access North awareness program, in the Province for this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our commitment to promote Labrador is absolutely huge this year. Mr. Speaker, after I responded to the previous question, I also brought to the member opposite, knowing his interest in this area, copies of the ads that were - I brought it to the member so that he could see first-hand the high-quality ads that are going to be running both here and all across the country, and in some of the same kind of magazines as the member has mentioned. Those things will happen. There is a plan in place for the timing of those ads to take place. There is going to be distribution of a CD throughout all households in this Province on the Spirit of the North, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to this, just this past week, Destination Labrador, themselves, which are the marketing body for Labrador, released their strategic plan indicating how they plan to double the market every four to seven years in Labrador for tourism. So, there are exciting plans for tourism in Labrador.

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, this time last year in the House of Assembly, I asked the question to the Premier dealing with lobbyist registration, the use of consultants, particularly with respect to a close associate of his in Liberal parties, Mr. Gary Anstey. He indicated at that time, under a question, that to his knowledge no meetings had occurred between him or any other ministers.

I would like to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy today - our information is that, on behalf of Inco, Mr. Anstey has met with you on several different occasions: Would you be able to tell us what was discussed at those meetings and what were the details of the lobbying effort by him on behalf of Inco?

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.

In our negotiations with Inco on the Voisey’s Bay file we have, as I have indicated quite publicly, a group of officials who work for us from within the bureaucracy. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have independent legal advice that we hire. We have independent financial advice, we have independent market advice with respect to the nickel industry generally. We bring to the table those whom we feel can best help us negotiate, hopefully, the arrangement that has to be concluded one way or the other with respect to the project.

From Inco’s perspective, they come to the table with a group of individuals as well. That group is not always consistent, as is ours. Depending on what we are negotiating, there may be different people at the table. But, let me say this: We do not ask Inco who they want to bring to the table. We expect they bring to the table people that they believe are best suited to their purposes. They hire people externally, that they believe are useful to them in their processes. To the extent that Mr. Anstey may be part of the Inco group on some basis - because I, frankly, have never asked nor do I know whether he is an employee, whether he is a lobbyist, whether he is an external consultant. I suspect he is an external consultant because that is what he does for a living. To the extent that he may be there, he is there at the invitation and at the request of Inco, and we talk to everybody that they bring to the table, they talk to everybody we bring to the table, and that is the way that business and life carries on.

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.

What is at stake here, the minster knows, as everyone in this House knows, that Mr. Anstey has unrestricted access to any minister in this House. I asked him the question: Could he inform this House of the meetings that he has had with Mr. Anstey - because he has had them - could he inform this House what were the details of those meetings vis-à- vis Inco or any other issue that he may have met with the minister on?

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 can tell the hon. member that anybody in this Province, to the extent that time is available and that the issue is pertinent, has unrestricted access to this minister at least, to the extent that I can make myself available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: We do not, Mr. Speaker, make ourselves unrestrictedly available to specific individuals. We are open to meet with anybody who has an interest to raise on behalf of their proponent or themselves directly with respect to development in the Province. If the hon. member wants to know to what extent Mr. Anstey may have been involved in discussions with respect to the Inco file, he should ask the people who hire him, he should ask the people who engage him, he should ask Inco themselves, to what extent they use or do not use Mr. Anstey; because I can tell the hon. member that we meet with all that Inco brings forward, as they do on our behalf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, last year there was no lobbying activity. This year, they are willing to meet with anybody and everybody vis-à-vis anything and everything. Mr. Anstey’s unrestricted access to this government is true, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, has he - my information is, and our information is, that he has met with Mr. Anstey on behalf of clients that Mr. Anstey has. Could he inform us of the details of the meetings he has had with Mr. Anstey, who has lobbied on behalf of clients who may be doing business with the minister’s department?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I am trying to remember. I cannot remember ever meeting with Gary Anstey in my office.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will give the following Private Member’s Motion:

WHEREAS the fishery and aquaculture are extremely important parts of the economic and social well being of this Province; and

WHEREAS the current state of our understanding of the fishery resources off our coast is an underdeveloped area and more research is needed in this field; and

WHEREAS bringing administrative functions closer to the people who pursue the fishery would result in a better exchange of ideas and better management;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support a comprehensive review of the organization of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans with the purpose of providing improved services to the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I continue to rise today to present yet another petition on roads in this Province. This particular petition is from an area in Green Bay and in particular, King’s Point.

We, the undersigned residents of King’s Point, in the District of Baie Verte, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave our roads. The deplorable and unfit conditions of the roads in our area jeopardize the safety of residents and the travelling public, hurt economic growth opportunities, and portray government’s lack of commitment to rural areas of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue in this House of Assembly, and as the minister just pointed out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I know what number she has it down as, but we are going to continue to present petitions on behalf of people in this Province on the situation with the deplorable road conditions throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that just a couple of weeks ago the Premier was in my district and the depot people had to go out and put pylons in front of the potholes so that the Premier would not go down in the potholes. That is how bad it is in the district, Mr. Speaker.

The people in King’s Point and Rattling Brook, by the way - and we talk about economic conditions - they have the only operating gold mine in this Province, Mr. Speaker. As the trucks continue to transport the ore away from that site to the milling operations at Nugget Pond, the roads get worse by the day.

Here is the point today, Mr. Speaker, and here is what people in my district in King’s Point and Rattling Brook, in particular, told me over the weekend. Day after day they see this - the good news is that the mine is operating in their district but at the same time the threat, even the threat that the only operating gold mine in Newfoundland and Labrador could be shut down very soon because they do not have the basic infrastructure of a road. Now, what kind of a sad statement is that in this Province today, when people realize that their road structure - some twenty-five to thirty years old, this particular road into King’s Point - day after day these trucks, which are operating the only gold mine, back and forth over that - and the minister knows this. These huge trucks going back and forth over that road and by the day it is getting worse. It is like waves going down over the road, Mr. Speaker.

On top of all that, we have school children who are travelling on these roads everyday and the unsafe conditions. It is absolutely despicable that throughout this Province people have to take the time to sign petitions to come to this House to ask for a simple basic infrastructure so that we can keep the only operating gold mine operating in this Province. It is shameful. The minister knows it is shameful. It is about time they put a long-term plan in place to address this despicable situation when it comes to roads in this Province.

I will continue to present petitions and support the people of King’s Point and Rattling Brook, in my district, for getting that road paved like it should be.

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 a number of residents from Labrador West. The prayer of the petition is:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled;

WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new MS drugs; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program from which this plan is funded only provides medication coverage for seniors under the senior’s plan and for people on income support; and

WHEREAS these drugs are very expensive; and

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House and spoken on this on a number of occasions over the past couple of weeks and I have questioned the minister in Question Period to try and get the government to introduce a system that will help alleviate the high cost to people who suffer from MS in this Province with the purchase of these drugs that they require. Each time the response from the government has been: they cannot afford it. That argument, as I said in the past, simply does not make sense because it is not a matter of whether or not government will pay, it is a matter of what they force people, individual families, to do to themselves before they will. If they ruin themselves financially and do away with all of their savings, do away with any RRSPs they may have, any children’s education fund that they may have set up, once they expend all these monies, Mr. Speaker, then this government will provide funding to them to help purchase the drugs; but until then, they refuse to do so. That is highly unfair to the men and women in this Province who work hard for a living to try and provide for their families to make as good a life as they possibly can, to have to use their money for a drug to treat an illness that they did not bring on themselves, that they did not do through abuse in one way or another, but simply inherited this disease and now they have to pay and suffer financially.

It is very unsettling to believe that we are the only Province in this country that does not offer any support whatsoever to people who are afflicted with MS. I think it is time the government changed their drug formula plan to include these drugs and to put in (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, I think it is important that government recognize that people cannot afford these drugs on their own. They need assistance, and that assistance is not just given to them, it is a sliding scale program based on income. It is a co-op type of program and is provided for in every other jurisdiction in this country. It is high time, Mr. Speaker, that this government got their act together and provided the same type of support to the people of this Province.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition as well. The petition reads:

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

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving schools in the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the approximately four kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition, another of many petitions that I have stood here in the House of Assembly, pretty well begging the government of today to look at the four kilometres that exists which needs to be upgraded and repaved between Birchy Cove and Bonavista.

There has been some feeble attempts made to look after this section of road over the past number of years. In fact, there have been four attempts made to upgrade and pave the five kilometres of road that we started out with. First, there was some ditching done and culvert replacement. Then the Department of Works, Services and Transportation went down and paved a small section of that particular route last year. I understood, in talking to the minister, that it was hoped it would be finished last year, but because of the cost of asphalt, because of the cost of paving last year, the programs had to be cut back. This was a program that had to be cut back and suffered due to the cutbacks and the high cost of doing road work last year.

The people in this particular area have gone out and stood by the side of the road - they have not disrupted traffic - handing out pamphlets asking people to support them in their quest to have this section of road, one of the main thoroughfares leading into Bonavista, upgraded and paved. There is four kilometres of road there that needs to be done in order to complete the section. I met with the minister on several occasions and said to him: Look, if we can get two-and-a-half kilometres done this year then that will look after the major problem of going around a pond there where the road has deteriorated to such an extent that you are driving on, not only the gravel shoulder, but the gravel centre of that particular road.

Mr. Speaker, the people are asking me to present their petitions. They are asking me to put in a plea to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to have this small section of roadway included in this capital works budget. It not a side street, it is not a side road, it is one of the main thoroughfares. In fact, it is the main thoroughfare from Plate Cove all the way down with about fifteen communities leading to the Town of Bonavista.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Town of Bonavista and the councillors in Bonavista have come forward and have met with ministers prior to the sitting minister and supported the people in that particular area there to have this section of road upgraded and paved. I put in a plea once more today, Mr. Speaker, to say to the minister: Include this section of roadway, the two-and-a-half to three kilometres, to be upgraded and paved in this year’s capital works budget.

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

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

Today I rise to present a petition on Voisey’s Bay from a number of people from Pouch Cove. It is a similar petition that we receive almost on a daily basis now regarding Voisey’s Bay, and I will read the prayer of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador - basically the prayer is:

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, we have to ask the question, where we are receiving so many of these petitions: Why are we receiving so many petitions? Basically, the people of this Province do not trust this Administration to make a deal with Inco on Voisey’s Bay.

We are receiving many petitions here and I expect we will be presenting many more in the days to come.

Mr. Speaker, Peter Jones, the President of Inco, has stated, basically, that this Administration has been more flexible than any other previous to this one in dealings with Inco and the making of a deal on Voisey’s Bay. He also said that, obviously, they want to ship concentrate out of this Province for as long as possible. Mr. Scott Hand has said that they want to use our ore, our nickel, to extend the lives, at Sudbury and Manitoba, of the mines there in that area.

Mr. Speaker, we find that is just not right. It is not fair to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The previous Premier, Mr. Tobin, has said there would be no ore leave this Province. Now, we find that this Administration is more flexible, as Mr. Jones has said. They are twisting words. They are trying to play with words in the media all the time, trying to rationalize and to justify their shipping of ore out of this Province.

Basically, what they want to do is to put our jobs - 300 jobs alone are going to be created in Sudbury, Ontario, Mr. Speaker. Three hundred jobs that could be created in this Province. It is absolutely not right to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, they are saying they are going to ship ore out. We do not know for how long. The Premier has stated it could be for as long as thirty-five years that they are going to ship our ore out of this Province, and they do not know - I asked the Premier where the ore was going to come back from - don’t know. It is almost the same as the FPI situation. They are not interested enough to ask any questions with respect to where the ore is going to come from, to be brought back to Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think it will ever happen, personally. If the ore leaves this Province, our rich ore, with the ovoid up there now in the next few years, if they sign this deal and ore leaves this Province, the rich ore - we know that the priority right now for Inco is Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba, with no ore up there. They are going to ship our ore out -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up, just to finish the thought?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

Basically what I am saying is that, if Thompson, Manitoba, and Sudbury, Ontario, are the priority for Inco now, when they have no ore, their ore is almost depleted, they are going to take our ore out and twenty-five years down the road, when our ore is gone, Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be the priority, when we have the rich ore now and it is not at this point in time. That in itself will tell you all, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition today.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We the undersigned citizens of the Cape Shore area hereby draw your attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route 100 - Cape Shore.

WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of the Highway Safety Act to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also from unsafe highways; and

WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority of any government;

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 100 and Route 100-16.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition, one of several that have been sent to my office from the people of the area, namely the communities of Branch, Point Lance, St. Bride’s, Cuslett, Angels Cove and Patrick’s Cove, who are very, very concerned about the deplorable road conditions in that area. Mr. Speaker, many people have been running into several problems with their vehicles because of the rough roads, Mr. Speaker, especially in a place called Branch country and Route 100-16, which is the road to Point Lance, Mr. Speaker.

Every day there are buses travelling over this road, emergency vehicles and ambulances are travelling over this road. The road is in deplorable condition. I have asked here several times over the past couple of weeks, Mr. Speaker, and presented petitioners here from these people in the area asking for repairs that are needed. I hope, in the wisdom of the minister, that he will look at finding some funding to address some of these concerns, Mr. Speaker.

It has certainly been raised with me time and time again, as I was out in the area on the weekend, because St. Bride’s is my home. As I was out in the area on the weekend, many people mentioned to me again about the road condition, Mr. Speaker. I think it is time now, getting up to the first of June. The Cape St. Mary’s Ecological Reserve opened up just a couple of weeks ago. This past weekend there were several people out in the area who were out to see Cape St. Mary’s. We will soon be into the tourist session, Mr. Speaker, and the roads will certainly not be seen as a welcome mat for people coming to visit our area.

These people are very concerned, the people who have signed these petitions, residents of the community. They are very concerned about the unsafe conditions because you will find, Mr. Speaker, when you are driving along the road, that you have to pull over to the left or to the right to get away from some of the massive holes that are in the pavement. Certainly, it is causing some great concern for the people in that area.

I know that the minister only has, give or take, around $23 million or $24 million, Mr. Speaker, for the provincial roads program this year, but I hope he will find some money to address some of the concerns here. There are more petitions on the way. I also had calls this morning from people in St. Mary’s Bay, very concerned about the road, from the St. Catherine’s area right down to Peter’s River, down through St. Mary’s Bay. I have had calls, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the roads in the Mount Carmel area, down in the Town of Placentia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

MR. MANNING: Just a moment to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: In the Town of Placentia, Mr. Speaker, certainly some roads are in need. I was in Ferndale on the weekend; again, another situation where there is certainly some work needed.

I put forward this petition today. Hopefully, the minister will heed some of the concerns that people in the area have raised and will look forward to addressing some of these concerns with some financial assistance to the people in the area. Hopefully soon, now that the asphalt plant will soon be up and running, we will be able to get some asphalt to take care of some of the concerns that are there; because, there is no doubt about it, it is unsafe, it is deplorable, and it certainly needs to be addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today to present regarding the Voisey’s Bay project.

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.

These signatures on this petition today, Mr. Speaker, are from Pasadena. The people who signed this obviously, Mr. Speaker, feel that this deal, any agreement that is going to be signed between government and Inco, should be brought to this House of Assembly where it can be debated by the people who represent the voters in the Province prior to the signatures going on that agreement.

The reason the people of this Province want the deal to come to this House of Assembly is because they do not trust government. The people of this Province have lost faith in government and their ability to negotiate a deal with Inco that will satisfy the long-term needs of the people of the Province, will satisfy the desire that the people have for protection, for full and maximum benefits from this project, because they have seen what has happened at Friede Goldman. The people of this Province have what has happened with other resources.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we get maximum benefit from our resources. It is time that our resources benefit the people of this Province. The people of this Province have given enough resources to Ontario and to Manitoba and to other provinces in Canada. The people of this Province want the resource in Voisey’s Bay and other resources to start giving maximum benefit to the people of the Province. It is time that we keep our resources for ourselves. We do not want any concentrate leaving this Province to go to Manitoba to create jobs there. We do not want any concentrate leaving this Province to go to Ontario to create jobs there. We want full and maximum benefit from this resource - no concentrate to leave the Province, no nickel to leave the Province. We want this resource processed in this Province to give maximum benefit to the people who own it, and that is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today and also present a petition to this hon. House on behalf of a number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, who equally feel strongly about this issue. As can be seen, a number of members on this side of the House, a number of the Official Opposition members, have now, for a number of days, presented, and will continue to present, petitions on behalf of a number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - the majority, I would suggest, of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - who feel quite strongly, Mr. Speaker, that this issue be sent loudly and clearly with respect to really what should be done, and the manner in which it should be done, on this important issue.

I would just like to briefly review the wording of the petition, 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.

Then there are a number of names by residents of this Province who obviously support the spirit of this petition.

Mr. Speaker, the message is obviously quite straightforward, not a complicated message, but one, for some reason or other, that members opposite seem to have some difficulty with. The message that the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are saying in huge numbers is simply that before any deal or contract, or an arrangement, whatever word we wish to use, before there is any resolution between Inco and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that before it becomes binding and becomes legally binding, conclusive and final on the people of this Province, that it be subjected to. In other words, it be done on the condition that it be openly and fully debated in the House of Assembly. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? An open and full and disclosed debate means that every single member of this Chamber, all forty-eight of us, regardless of the side that we sit on -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - representing the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, will have some say, can ask the appropriate questions, Mr. Speaker, and can participate in a debate that is so significant and meaningful on the futures of every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to present a petition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A petition not unlike the petitions that my colleagues have presented in recent days, over the past couple of weeks, and myself last week.

I will read the prayer of the petition:

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

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

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

I say again, Mr. Speaker, much as I did last week when I stood and presented a similar petition, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want nothing more than a full debate and disclosure of the terms of an agreement with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Inco on the development of the Voisey’s Bay nickel find.

Mr. Speaker, that is not too much to ask, I don’t think, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador given our history of bad deals, given our history with resource development in Newfoundland and Labrador and the lack of benefits that the people of this Province have seen from major projects in the past.

I support this petition. I certainly call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular, the Premier, to bring before this House of Assembly, before it is signed, before it is final and binding on the people of this Province, the deal that he has negotiated with Inco; not after the fact, as he has stated in recent days. We do not want the deal after the fact. We want to be able to debate the deal before it is signed, before it is final and binding on the people of this Province. That is not too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. That is not too much to ask. I say, why wouldn’t we? Why wouldn’t the people of the Province want to know what is in this deal? Why wouldn’t we in this House, the people on this side of the House and on the other side of the House, want to be able to debate a deal on Voisey’s Bay? Especially when we hear comments from Mr. Scott Hand, who says: we hope to be shipping Voisey’s Bay concentrate to Thompson, Manitoba and Ontario. Why not, Mr. Speaker?

The Premier uses words that it is concentrate and not ore. Well, Mr. Speaker, as our leader has articulated in recent days: orange juice and concentrated orange juice, there are still oranges in it. We can talk about nickel ore or we can talk about nickel concentrate, the fact of the matter is we are talking about nickel from this Province going to another province for processing. That is something that was not part of the mandate that this government received in 1999. It is not something that was supposed to be negotiated. So we want the opportunity, and the people of this Province want the opportunity, to view the deal, the agreement, the agreement-in-principle, whatever the Premier wants to call it. We do not care what he calls it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: - as long as whatever he reaches he brings it to this House for us to debate and for us to vote on before it is signed by his government.

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 rise today to present a petition on Voisey’s Bay. The prayer of which begins:

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, I have names from constituents in my area, my district, who are very much concerned about the pending deal. Their concern rests with the fact that this deal will, in fact, be signed, sealed and then delivered, not only to this House of Assembly but certainly to them as residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed, to the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the catch, signed beforehand. Again, the deal - we have seen attempts over the last almost decade to reach a deal with Inco with regard to the mine at Voisey’s Bay. It has been a long drawn out process, a process which began with a great deal of promise and hope.

I would like to remind the House that when we talk about promise and hope, it was not only the promise of this government with regard to the deal but a promise by Inco. Inco certainly promised to build a mine and mill at Voisey’s Bay, and a smelter and refinery in Argentia. But the funny thing about it, Mr. Speaker, was that they also threw in, I believe, that the sale of the copper and the cobalt would offset the cost of the mine and mill; actually saying that the nickel would be basically pure profit. That was back in the mid-1990s. Now, we just fast-track it to this present day and those promises are kind of vague as we hear the CEO of Inco taking about feeding Manitoba and Ontario, the smelters up there.

This is disconcerting, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, especially to the residents of my particular area because, again, they realize the importance of this mine. They were part of the ERCO at Long Harbour, the Come By Chance, the Bull Arm and the Whiffen Head. They know what can happen if the proper deal is gotten. A proper deal, Mr. Speaker, is the catch word here. We certainly want a deal that is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we do not see that deal until after it is signed and binding, again, the debate on it would, I guess, be useless to some degree because once a deal is binding, once a deal is signed, once it is sealed - and we have seen previous deals, and I do not have to remind the House of the Churchill Falls deal and the difficulty that previous governments have had in even opening up clauses in that deal, in looking at the deal and trying to change the deal. So, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the time will come when a deal, hopefully, will be gotten, but a deal that is not signed, sealed and delivered without, at least, the ratification of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why the members on this side of the House are asking that the ratification take place before the deal is signed, before it is binding, because the implications of it not having been properly debated before it is signed certainly is going to put the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a weakened position.

Mr. Speaker, if the deal is a good deal, if it is a deal that is for the full benefit of Newfoundlanders -

MR. SPEAKER ( Mercer): Order, please!

The member’s time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just to clue up.

If it is for the full benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador it should be brought to this House and ratified before it is signed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In my view, the ‘Ayes’ have it.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to move Motion 4, which is to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. or at 10:00 p.m. today.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that pursuant to Motion 4, this House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Education; 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. 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 Sheila Osborne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Young; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, 22 ayes and 15 nays.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion carries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1

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

MR. LUSH: Order 1, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the hon. the Opposition House Leader adjourned the debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today we are debating a motion put forward by the Minister of Finance, that this House support the budgetary motion of the government. That means the Budget as presented in the Estimates by the government.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my commentary in the time I have left, I want to again pay recognition to the Member for Ferryland, the Finance critic, who, over the last several weeks, in dealing with the Budget, as presented by the government, in his capacity as critic for Finance, I suppose, unprecedented, in many ways, in terms of his response. For those who may be watching, the Finance critic on the Official Opposition, according to our rules, has unlimited time. You know that when you get the Government House Leader standing up asking the Speaker what is the difference between unlimited and eternity, then the Member for Ferryland has absolutely done his job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe almost twelve hours in terms of consistent and constant debate dealing with - that is outside of the Estimates as presented by the government in terms of commentary dealing with a wide variety of areas that all members here on this side of the House will have the opportunity, within twenty minutes per member, to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a couple of notions this afternoon with respect to the Budget Debate, and I would like to begin with the Budget itself. It has been a long practice, or it has been a practice of this government, that we have seen time over time, certainly since 1996, when Budget day is dealt with in terms of the glamour of it, government putting its best foot forward announcing that the budget this year, or each and every year, is very manageable. Yet, we find out subsequently, particularly when the Comptroller General and the Auditor General release their information, their reports, six months in or a year later, that the budget situation is going to be far worse.

Government’s explanation over time has been a description of accounting methods, accrual based accounting. The fact of the matter is, that over the last several years we have added significantly to the debt of our Province and the budget; and this year’s budget is no different. The budget forecast, in terms of a deficit, is a $93 million deficit. That is what government has said it is going to be. There is no way that that target will be on simply because the numbers do not add up.

We see in a bill presented before the House, for example, Bill 7, an act requesting of this Legislature that each member in this Legislature pass a bill giving government the authority to borrow up to $200 million above and beyond what was presented in the Budget Estimates without even itemizing what was going to be in that budget.

The Minister of Finance has explained in certain detail what that potentially could be used for. But, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the bill - and this is the telling comment - if you look at the legislation, here we have a government - just on the heels of presenting a budget prior to the Easter recess - introducing a bill that requests of this House, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province." People must understand the amount that this government is looking for is in addition to, on top of, what the House has been asked to approve in the Budget Estimates, approve and generally give government the authority to go on and spend money in accordance with what is in the estimates.

Bill 7, we do not know what it is going to be spent on. The minister has talked about, on any number of occasions when this was first raised, of what it is going to be used for. The Acting Minister of Mines and Energy one day I recall - I asked questions in the House on it - gave a completely different answer. He said: Yes, we would itemize what we are looking for with respect to Bill 7. The next day, in a hastily called press conference at 4 o’clock on a Friday afternoon, the Minister of Finance contradicts what the acting minister said the day before where there would be no itemization provided for.

Here is what gets people worried, here is what raises questions when you look at the wording of the bill. The resolution is: To Be Submitted To A Committee Of The Whole House In Relation To The Raising Of Loans By The Province. "That is is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province the sum of $200,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be...." - this is interesting, the language is very interesting because the language in legislation, as the old saying goes, is that the devil is always in the details. Here is the language: "...from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province the sum of $200,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew or refund securities issued under an Act of the province or that may be paid into the Newfoundland and Labrador Government Sinking Fund."

The explanatory note with the bill is one sentence, Mr. Speaker. You would anticipate that when you are looking for $200 million from this Legislature, to do a variety of matters, that it would be outlined what it is for. The explanatory note is very telling. What is not there is even more telling; but here is what the explanatory note says: "This Bill would authorize the government to raise $200,000,000 by way of loan for the purpose of the Consolidated Revenue Fund."

Now when I first got the bill I was expecting to read on. One sentence, $200 million. Every member in this House is being asked to provide this government with the authority to borrow $200 million, on top of the budget that was just presented to the House several weeks ago; a $93 million deficit. Ninety-three million of that $200 million is for - my colleague from Ferryland has indicated correctly - a projected deficit. The other $107 million, what is it for?

You would anticipate, with a bill like this, Mr. Speaker, that under the explanatory note there would be an itemized list of what it could be used for. If there are legitimate and bonafide explanations that some of it can be only described as raising - as it says here - certain sums to take advantage of better interest rates, fair enough, but you would expect even that to be itemized. What is the money for?

The minister talked about in her explanation, in response to our critic, that it is for hospitals, possibly school boards. It could be for anything. The fact of the matter is, that in her explanation one would have thought that in a bill looking for $200 million they would have indicated more than a sentence.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say in this particular piece of legislation - and this is one of the reasons why members on this side of the House have some difficulty in supporting, in principle, the budgetary motion supporting the Budget as presented by the Minister of Finance and President Treasury Board because what the Budget is here and what was presented on Budget Day, in terms of an anticipated or expected $93 million deficit is not in fact what it is going to end up to be. We can hide behind definitions. We can say we used this method of accounting as compared to that method of accounting but what people in the Province want to know is that at the end of this year: How much money did we take in from a variety of sources called revenues? How much did we spend from those revenues or in excess of those revenues? You are left with what actually our budget will be or our deficit will be for the current year.

I believe my colleague from Ferryland touched on this in detail, it could be as high as $350 million to $400 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say it will be closer to $500 million than it is what they said.

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, that is pretty telling. The critic for finance, who understands the financial situation the Province is in, who understands the budgetary process as good, if not better, than anybody in this House, talks about that it could be as high as between $400million and $500 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Bank of Montreal said close to $300 million not counting the accrual method.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right, that is exactly right, good point. The Member for Ferryland has offered me another point that he has talked about. The Bank of Montreal has said that using their own accounting method could be as high as $300 million. That is not including, according to the accrual method, extras that were coming.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons why we find it difficult to stand today to support the motion as put forward by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to support her resolution.

Here are some more details on the bill, for example. Remember, people should be aware and should remember that in this Bill 7, looking for the authority to borrow $200 million, $93 million of that $200 million to go towards the projected deficit this year, that the other $107 million we do not know what they are looking for it for.

It goes on to say that the short title - well, this is the Loan Act, 2002. "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is authorized to raise by way of loan...." That is the Cabinet, which means, once this bill is passed, Cabinet, seventeen or eighteen members of a forty-eight seat Legislature, have the authority then to make decisions for the rest of us. "(a) the sums of money that are required for the Consolidated Revenue Fund to make good, in whole or in part, actual or estimated deficiencies between provincial revenue and expenditures..." - that is what we just talked about, between what we take in, ultimately, and what we are responsible for funding and what we will say we will fund and what the difference will be - "...or to provide for expenditures..." - and here is the key, Mr. Speaker, right in the language of the legislation - "...or to provide for expenditures made or to be made".

So the Cabinet - (inaudible) this piece of legislation - the Cabinet will decide where that money will go, on expenditures that may be announced in this Budget or for other plans that may not be announced in this Budget, because the bill says it: for expenditures to be made or not to be made, on expenditures that may occur.

One is left with the question: How can we support a Budget put forward by this government on Budget day, which has projected a $93 million deficit, and then three to four weeks later a bill is tabled in this House for all of us to see where government is looking for money above and beyond that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred?

MR. E. BYRNE: Two hundred million. We assume $93 million for the projected deficit on current account, and another $107 million. How can anybody truly have faith in the Budget of this Province when that sort of occurrence is taking place?

Mr. Speaker, there has been much made about the Opposition’s questions on this matter, much talked about, public commentary coming from the opposite side. Well, this is not an usual process. This happens every year. This dates back to thirty years ago under Frank Moores. The fact of the matter is this: We are talking about a significant sum of money. We are talking about $200 million. We are talking about $93 million which we know is going to the current deficit, but we are talking about this government asking us, the members in this Legislature, to give Cabinet the authority to spend an additional $107 million without telling the people of the Province where it is going to go.

On top of that, in the House, there is another piece of legislation called Bill 8. Bill 8 is also a piece of legislation associated with the Budget. Bill 8 is, An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Mr. Speaker, this is essentially a bill that talks about the use of special warrants. A special warrant, for those who are unclear of what special warrants are: special warrants are a device or a mechanism that can be used by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet of the day, to deal with emergencies that may arise, to deal with situations that would allow a Cabinet to respond to situations to ensure that the prosecution or delivery of public services goes on uninterrupted to the people of the Province. But, Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation, in the use of special warrants, when the House of Assembly is open, the requirement for such expenditures are supposed to be tabled in this House. The Auditor General, in her own commentary, talked about the use of special warrants and how flagrant they have been used, where they have not been tabled while the House is in session. This is one bill that is asking us again, in this Legislature - and let me read it. The resolution is clear, and it is important for those who may be listening, that the resolution: To be submitted to a Committee of the Whole House in relation of the granting of supply to Her Majesty. Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2002, the sum of approximately $51 million.

Mr. Speaker, this money has already been spent. It has been spent by special warrant, and we have been asked again. Now, all of the money here may be legit. All of what has been spent with respect to what is itemized - and that is the difference in this bill and another bill - this one is itemized by department. For example, Heads of Expenditure: $2,500,000 to Works, Services and Transportation; $10,420,000 towards Education; $34,753,100 towards Health and Community Services; and $3,343,700 to Justice.

Now, while all of this may be legitimate, may be bona fide, the fact of the matter is that we are talking about a particular process where we, as a Legislature, are being asked to approve the spending of money that has already been spent. That is at issue here. Normally, when the House is open, and it should always be when the House is open, that any use of special warrants should come before this House.

There are legitimate reasons for special warrants. I can think of any number in the last nine years. It could be, for example, that a situation may present itself that one of the ferries that the Province owns and operates for the people of the Province when the House is not open - for example, it could be in July; let’s take that as an example - that there is a serious breakdown of that service and, as a result, Cabinet must meet to ensure that the service is provided no matter where it may be - the Southwest Coast, the Labrador run, Bell Island, Little Bay Islands, to Fogo Island, Change Islands - wherever that may occur. If there is a serious interruption, that Cabinet must meet and certain expenditures must be required, by all means, the use of a special warrant is designed for that purpose, to allow government to continue to operate services to the public in an uninterrupted fashion that would give the people of the Province exactly what they would expect.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave to clue up, just a minute?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

Just to conclude on special warrants - that would allow government the opportunity to provide a continuation of services where an emergency exists so that they can get on with it and get the service done.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying, on the use of special warrants, one of the problems that we have had is that we feel that the use of special warrants has not been used correctly. The Auditor General has talked about breaches to the Financial Administration Act. Mr. Speaker, we agree that, when the House is open, it is no sense for Cabinet to meet and approve money, but when this House is open, the issuance of special warrants must be brought to this House for approval.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to the excellent address to the House by the Member for Kilbride, certainly the motion that we are debating this afternoon is under Motion 1, to move that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kilbride, as the Opposition House Leader, has outlined the failings of this particular government. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back over several budgets. I want to go, first of all, back to 1998-1999 when we listened in this House to budget statements by ministers of the Crown. I remember them saying we are going to have a balanced Budget. I do remember in 1998 there was great applause and the Premier of the day, Brian Tobin, when the Minister of Finance stood in the House and said: We have a balanced Budget, the first time since Confederation. We had all the applause. Everybody stood, on that side of the House, and applauded and gave a standing ovation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what our Budget of this year says to us. I want to review what is in Exhibit V, and that is on italicized page xi. It says that in 1998 the total public service debt of this Province was $5,981,800,000. I will say that again. In 1998, according to the Budget documents, the total public service debt was $5,981,800,000. In 1999, our total public debt had jumped to $6,456,400,000.

In other words, how can you have this wonderful, balanced budget? Everybody applauded on that side of the House and said how wonderful things were, but in that one year the records show that our total public service debt went from $5.9 billion to $6.4 billion. Then from 1999 to the year 2000 we note that it jumped to $6,617,800.000. Then in 2001 more balanced budgets, we were told.

I do not know if you remember the Minister of Finance standing in the House and saying this was going to be a great year, we are only going to be $10 million in debt for the year on our budget. Yet the documents tabled in this House show that, from the year 2000 to 2001, we went from $6.6 billion up to $7.062 billion.

Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be a financial giant to realize that in 1998 we were told we had a total public debt of $5.981 billion and by 2001, after all those balanced budgets or near balanced budgets that we heard the Minister of Finance say repeatedly over and over again during the Budget debate, we went from $5.98 billion up to $7.062 billion. The documents for 2002 show that the total public sector debt for this year will lead us to have a debt of $7,523,200,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been asked to approve the budgetary policy and yet, during the years when this government was telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when the Premier of the day was shouting from his podiums and saying how wonderful things were and telling us that we were going to have more balanced budgets, and when the Minister of Finance was telling us, as she did the other day - she had to hesitate because she was reluctant to tell any more good news about the Budget and about the prosperity that we were enjoying as a Province. We have to ask the question: How can we, in those years, talk about having balanced budgets, and we move from 1998 having $5.9 billion in total public sector debt up to this year having $7.5 billion?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back a little further. In 1989, when the Liberal government came to office, the total public sector debt of this Province was $4.8 billion; in 1989. Yet we know that in the year 2002 it is $7.523 billion. That is an alarming increase. That means we have had about $2.7 billion added to our public debt since this group on that side of the House came to office thirteen years ago. Mr. Speaker, if we were to break that down in terms of how much it is per year, how much it is per month, and how much it is per day, we would find out that every single day this Province is going in debt by about $25,000 an hour. That is alarming! About $25,000 an hour is what we are going in debt. It does not take any kind of a mathematician to figure that kind of thing out.

In 1989, after forty years of Confederation, we had a total public sector debt of $4.8 billion. This year we have a total debt of $7.5 billion. Yet, in the last number of years, when this government talked about balanced budgets - every year they said, we are going to have a balanced budget, and yet we know that was not quite the way it was. Last year in this House we asked questions. I asked some of them, my colleague from Ferryland asked some more. Indeed, on this side of the House, we asked the question repeatedly to government: Would you please tell us what the real debt is?

Last summer we had the Minister of Finance telling us, day after day, the debt this year is going to be - and she talked about 2001 - $30 million. After repeated questions by the finance critic and by other members of the House, finally it was revealed that the real debt would be around $300 million for the year.

Mr. Speaker, that is where we have difficulty with this particular motion. How can we, on this side of the House, be asked to support a government which, on the one hand, told us just last summer that we are only going to have a debt of $30 million, when in reality we knew the debt would be a lot more than that? This year, when they talk about having a debt of approximately $93 million, the critic for finance tells us that it is going to be more like $400 million, and it could be $450 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: Could be more.

MR. H. HODDER: And it could be more.

We know, from the expected borrowings that we see in the Budget documents - last year, in 2001, the total debt of the Province was $7.062 billion. This year it is going to be $7.523 billion. Therefore, that accounts for last year. My colleague from Ferryland tells us that last year we had an increase there of over $500 million in public sector debt. Of course, we do not know what it is going to be this year. What we really see is, in fact, if it is going to be more this year, at least this year the Minister of Finance is saying that she is acknowledging the debt will be $93 million. My critic says it is going to be much higher than that and, because he has been right so many years, I tend to support his particular viewpoint over all others.

Mr. Speaker, in the last several days in this House we have heard comments about what the Auditor General had to say about this government’s financial management. We all know that when the Auditor General’s Report was tabled last fall there was a lot of debate. There was a great deal of debate because the Auditor General was certainly not very supportive of the manner in which this government recorded its debts and in which it recorded the monies that were owing by the Province. She said that we were not doing a great job. Now, there is some difference in the financial community as to the way certain things should be accounted. However, the Auditor General compared this Province to other provinces. She said: Well, certain things were showing some improvement. She certainly said that this Province has a long way to go.

This government talks about accountability. You have to read all their words in the Throne Speech and all their words in the Budget Speech about accountability, you have to read all that, and then read what the Auditor General says, and you have to ask yourself the question: Are we talking about the same government? Is the Auditor General talking about the same government that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board was talking about when she talked about accountability in her Budget Speech? It cannot be the same people. It cannot be the same group at all, yet we know it is. I tend to take the word of the Auditor General with a great more credence than I take comments made by the government in answers to questions, because the Auditor General has gone and she has looked at all of the accounts. She has said she has look at all of the accounts, and she has said that the government has been weighed in the balances and has been found wanting.

So, Mr. Speaker, we want to say, on this side of the House, we need to have all of the information. How can you say you have a deficit of $30 million and then it comes out to be a deficit of $400 million? How can you say that you have a balanced budget since 1998 and yet the total public sector debt shows, since 1998, we have had debt increases totaling $1.6 billion? That is a long way from having a balanced budget, a very long way from a balanced budget, when what is said by the Minister of Finance in her Budget Speech is not consistent with the information tabled in the House in the Budget documents.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the last several days, as well, we have had a great deal of debate in this House about the Voisey’s Bay contract. Certainly, we want to bring the analogy here. When the Auditor General says she has concerns about the way the government manages its finances - and certainly she documents why she would have concerns - we, on this side of the House, have great concerns about the manner in which this government is handling the Voisey’s Bay file. We have had petitions. I think we are up to twenty-three or twenty-four different petitions presented by Members on this side of the House in the last several days, and we have many more to come, asking this government if they would have full disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final deal on the Voisey’s Bay development by Inco and this government.

Mr. Speaker, maybe a little history lesson would be helpful. Some people might remember in 1996 Inco made a great number of promises to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1996 Inco was saying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - we remember during the election in that year. They promised in 1996 they were going to build a mine and a mill in Voisey’s Bay, Labrador. After a very high profile road show and public consultations, they had a large news conference in which they promised the people of Argentia that a smelter-refinery would be built in their community.

Inco has made some great significant promises to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1996, after Inco had bragged that Voisey’s Bay was the largest nickel, copper and cobalt discovery in the world they, themselves, said that the sale of copper and cobalt alone would offset the cost of the mine; the mine, the mill, the smelter and the refinery. They said that would offset. People will remember, who were here at that time, the comments that were made in this House: that would leave the nickel the most abundant material in the deposit as pure profit. Remember that? Do members remember the comments made by Inco in 1996? They also said, in 1996, that Voisey’s Bay was the richest, had the lowest cash cost and the higher payback than any of the mines in Ontario and Manitoba. As a matter of fact, in 1996 Inco said - and this government supported them - the projected production rate would be 107 million pounds of nickel a year at Voisey’s Bay; nearly twice the capacity which justified a smelter in Thompson, Manitoba.

Now, what is happening in the year 2002? Now we have a different scenario altogether. Inco now is saying that they are going to develop this particular resource, but just a few days ago there was some commentary by some of the officials who were connected to Inco. Now they are talking about a different scenario altogether. In fact, Peter Jones, Inco’s President and Chief Operating Officer, said in March: the provincial government is being more flexible than ever in negotiations regarding the development of Voisey’s Bay. That is our concern. This government has changed its mind. They are bending over backwards to get a deal.

We know what happened in Marystown when this government bent over backwards to get a deal. Now when Peter Jones says that this government is being more flexible - I am quoting words used by Peter Jones. These are not my words, they are his words. He said: This government is being more flexible now than they have been in the past. We know what flexibility got the people of Marystown. I remember one time when the yard in Marystown - where I have many family members who worked in that yard - employed 700 and 800 people. Back in the mid-1990s they were talking about that yard being able to employ 1,000 people. Mr. Speaker, we now know what happened in that yard. There was a deal made, a very flexible deal, whereby Friede Goldman got a wonderful deal; $82 million worth of assets were transferred to Friede Goldman for $1. Now that is being flexible, that is being very flexible.

The other day in the House the Premier said that that was not a bad deal because we had two years of work. Well let me tell everybody in this House, the two years of work had nothing to do with Friede Goldman. These were contracts that were already in place when Friede Goldman took over the yard, all they did was just carry them out. Yes, there were some minor repairs done to a few boats and this kind of thing but the primary source of employment was employment that was already in place when Friede Goldman took over the yard. Then, of course, they said that they were going to make so many hours of work per year and if they did not do it, this government was going to go and make them pay a penalty. We know what happened. When push came to shove this government said: naw, forget about that. We won’t stand in your way. If you can find someone to buy it from you, then go ahead. That is the context in which we have to put Voisey’s Bay comments by Peter Jones. Peter Jones said this government was being more flexible than ever. I put the flexibility in the context of Marystown, where of course the yard was just sold again, to Peter Kiewit and Sons. We know that it was sold for $7 million-plus. Of course, there was a forgiveness of the $10 million that would have been a penalty that this government was supposed to have imposed on Friede Goldman.

So, $17 million for either the monies paid -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: One moment to finish up one or two sentences.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, and I thank the Government House Leader for the few moments.

Mr. Speaker, my difficulty is when you look at what this government said in its budgetary speeches and what the total debt is now. When you listen to what Peter Jones is saying, talking about being more flexible and you look at the history of Marystown, we have concerns about this government’s financial management of the Province. We also have concerns about their decision-making processes.

Thank you very much.

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, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You’re not supposed to speak here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Do you want me to sit down? What did you say? I ask the House Leader for some direction here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will seek guidance from the Table.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess that confusion is cleared up.

I intend to use my twenty minutes speaking here today, not to talk about figures and put forward some of the figures that the Member for Ferryland has brought forward, and my colleague who just spoke from Waterford Valley, illustrated quite well, accurate figures. Before I go on and talk about - because I intend to talk about my district. I intend to talk about roads. I intend to talk about health care. I intend to talk about unemployment, or the lack of employment, but first I would just like to commend our finance critic from Ferryland who went - I think our House Leader said - twelve hours. I did not hear him repeat one word in the twelve hours that he was up giving his assertion. I did not hear him repeat one word. It was all facts. It was all accurate information that he put forward to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Very accurate, concise information. I am certain that people out there learned a lot from that twelve hours of speech from our finance critic.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on a couple of topics. First, I am going to touch on health care in my district. Back in 1994 there was $1.4 million spent to refurbish part of the Golden Heights Manor. In that refurbishment plan there were ten beds created; ten beds in the Golden Heights Manor. And there was furniture, I say to the new Minister of Health and Community Services. There was furniture put into those bedrooms at that particular time and the doors were closed. I have raised the issue here in this House many times, talking about the need to have those ten extra beds open. I have raised the questions and the need here in this House to put forward to the minister people’s desire to have their mother, their father, their loved one put into the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista. Each time I have been told that the waiting list is not long enough. There has to be a waiting list of seven or eight people before we would consider opening one of those beds.

Mr. Speaker, that is all very well for somebody here in this House to say that there has to be a waiting list of seven or eight people, but can you imagine a phone call being made, somebody trying to get their mother, their father, a loved one into the Golden Heights Manor and for their member to tell them: I’m sorry, but there are not enough people on the waiting list. If there is one person on the waiting list, if there is a need and if the facilities are there then a bed, or those beds, should be opened. If there is no need for them then close them down.

I would not even hazard to guess the number of meetings that we have had with the former health care ministers, the former members of the Peninsula Health Care board, putting forward our desire to see those ten beds opened up and exist there for the good of the people who need to be admitted to the Golden Heights Manor. I always call it a home. We always refer to it as the home because it is a home. It is a home away from home. The staff, the doctors, the nurses and the people who are working there are second to none and provides care that is second to none.

I just want to make the new health care minister, the not so old health care minister, aware of those existing beds at the Golden Heights Manor and say to him that while we recognize the need to open two beds now, there are still eight beds there that are lying vacant. The rooms are there, the facilities are there, and when the need arises, whether it is for one bed to be open or all ten, we should open them.

The people working at the Golden Heights Manor, the nurses there, the staff, have stepped up to the plate and said: Look, we are already worked to the limit. We are already worked to the hilt, if you would, and we, too, would like to see those beds open up. If it can be accommodated, if one or two can be accommodated within the existing workforce, then we are willing to look at that.

That is the concern that I put forward with health care. I think we have solved the problem, at least temporarily, with the doctor shortage there. There have been many times that we have put forward the need and put forward the plea to have extra doctors stationed in Bonavista especially, because that is where the need has been. I suppose there is nothing more frustrating than not having a family doctor but having to go to a different doctor every time you visit the health care facility, and not have somebody aware of your situation or aware of your health problems. That seems to, at least temporarily, have alleviated itself. Now I put forward the need to look at those ten beds again, and put forward to the minister the need to have those beds open and have them occupied by people who are on a waiting list in order to be admitted into the Golden Heights Manor.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to touch on is roads. I have stood here many, many times in this House, especially the last two sittings of the House of Assembly, putting forward the need to have some road work done in this year’s capital works budget in the District of Bonavista South. When I look at and put forward the need to have Route 235, one of the main trunk roads leading to the Bonavista Peninsula, upgraded and repaved, the roads going through Open Hall, Red Cliff and Tickle Cove, the need to have this eight kilometres of road reconstructed and paved, and the need to have the gravel road leading into Winter Brook and Jamestown not reconstructed, because the road has already been reconstructed, the need to have that particular road paved. Those people have been - in fact, it was about four years ago that they celebrated the 100^th anniversary of their town, Winter Brook, a very vibrant little town. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that there is probably nobody in the small Town of Winter Brook that does not work. They may not all have full-time jobs, but they are all fortunate enough to have a job to be able to go to work. Most people there are fortunate enough to work either full time or part time. In order to get to their place of work and get back to their home again, they have to drive over a dirt road. Last year we were fortunate enough to have gotten two kilometres of pavement to pave part of the Town of Winter Brook and part of the Town of Jamestown. That is all they are looking for.

The only calls that I get from Jamestown and Winter Brook are the calls to have their road paved. Their calls are not for sidewalks or street lights or water and sewer; it is to put in the simple request to try and have their roads paved so that they might be able to at least have a decent road to drive over.

When they put up the argument as to the amount of money they pay to register their vehicle, the amount of money that they pay for their driver’s licence, the amount of money they pay every time they fill up their car or their truck with gasoline, the road taxes that they pay, they are asking: Why are we treated any different than anybody else?

Maybe it is time that we should start directing money in this Province instead of throwing it all together and seeing where we are going to place it when we divvy it up. Maybe it is time, especially when you look at road work, that we should look at the amount of money that we take in, the Province takes in, in taxes on gasoline and to make sure that a sizeable amount of that money, because of the way it is generated, would go back into road work, in the reconstruction, upgrading and paving of roads in the Province; roads that the federal government are not responsible for, but roads that the provincial government are responsible for.

Mr. Speaker, I was a little bit disappointed that Route 230 - the main highway, the Discovery highway, leading to the Bonavista Peninsula - here we are in the final hours of the Roads for Rail Agreement, when we thought in the beginning that the amount of money that was allocated for that particular road would be sufficient to have all of that thoroughfare upgraded and repaved, only to find out that there is still in excess of thirty kilometres of roadway, thirty kilometres of trunk road on Route 230, which is now left undone, unfinished, not upgraded, not repaved. Some of it is probably some of the worse road in the Province, very dangerous road, I say to people opposite.

Now we are left with no money, and my understanding is that it is only recently that the minister went to Ottawa to put in a plea for more money, to negotiate another agreement with their federal cousins up in Ottawa in order to have another roads agreement put in place. Because it is impossible for this government - whether we are over there, or whether the present group are sitting there - to have enough money in the provincial budget to look after the need for road work in this Province. I do not know how many kilometres of road we have here, the minister would probably know that, but I can assure you that it is not within reality and it is not within the ability of this government, unless there is help from the federal government, to reach out and provide funding in order to help look after some the major trunk roads in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I also have to refer to some of the decisions and the direction that the Minister of Government Services and Lands is looking at as it relates to bingo in this Province. You hear the minister talking about how he is going to get in and he is going to make changes in the way bingo is run in this Province. You might say to yourself: Well, why would you be concerned about that? Why would you be concerned about people running a bingo game?

I say to people opposite, and I say to people here in this Legislature, that bingo, many times, is the only way that volunteer organizations, especially in rural areas, raise funds, whether it be to operate a Lions Club, to operate a fire department or to operate a Legion.

The minister, in his wisdom, said this is a situation where one size fits all. You have to bring in rules and regulations and everybody has to treated equally. He is talking about the huge amount of money that people within some areas - I guess he is talking about the urban areas because it certainly does not happen in the rural areas - are charging for the rental of halls, and the amount of money that is being taken in to provide to that charity.

Mr. Speaker, in my district, I think of the fire department in Little Catalina, I think of the Lions Club in Bloomfield and Musgravetown, and I think of the Royal Canadian Legion in Charleston. This is the only way they have of rasing money. While the minister might say because they do not get 15 per cent as a profit to donate to that charity that it is not a viable operation, then I suggest to him I do not know how he is going to take $10,000 or $12,000 or $15,000 a year away from a group of volunteers who use this money to put gas in the fire truck and to buy hose in order to be responsible and effective in fighting fires, to buy equipment. If he is going to take this money away, then I suggest to him that he had better talk to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and see if he is willing to cut the cheque in order to maintain those organizations that I just mentioned. The minister, in his wisdom, talked about how he was going to work with them. The minister said: I am going to work with them, to show them how they can make more money.

I had a call from a CBC reporter who said: What is the minister talking about? How is he going to work with them? Is he going to go selling bingo cards? Is he going to stand outside the hall and put up a toll gate and say: Go in here tonight because there is a bingo game. Is that the way the minister is going to help them along? Because he is confused. It is a prime example, Mr. Speaker, of a minister living inside the overpass with a set of winkers on, who does not understand what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a prime example of a minister having tunnel vision. It is a prime example - and I say it while the minister is in his chair - of a minister and a group of people, if they support him, being out of touch with the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the minister, it is time for you to stay off the backs of volunteers and get out of their pockets and let them work for the good of rural communities in order to provide fire protection -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: - in order for them to provide services to their communities. Leave them alone. If you are not willing to write the cheque, then stay off their back and stay out of their pockets, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I only have twenty minutes and there is another thing I would like to add here because I want to get this in. I have wanted to get it in for awhile, to show the people out there how the rules and regulations of this government that they have created - to show you how out of tune that they are. I am going to tell you a story, and the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods in his seat and I want him to hear the story. I am going to tell them a story about a short time ago when this government decided that they were going to do away with all-terrain vehicles using wetlands and boglands in the Province. They came out and introduced a piece of legislation. They were saying, because of the damage that is caused to wetlands and bogs and other areas in the Province by ATV users, we are going to bring in legislation now and we are going to make it the law of the land that ATVs are not allowed to use those areas any more, because they are sensitive areas, and the owners are only going to be allowed to use them on hard ground, in trailways and other areas, abandoned roadways, in which they are not causing any damage. Now, there is nothing wrong with that idea. There is nothing wrong with that concept, and it was a good piece of legislation. The only thing is, how it was implemented.

I had a group of people from Bonavista who had a cabin. It was their favorite place to go, it was their vacation, it was their trip to Florida every year; going into their cabin, whether it be for a little comradery or whether it be fishing. They decided that they were going to be responsible and they were going to adhere to the rules and regulations that this government had brought about. They said: Lets get together. There are four of us who go into this particular area fishing all the time. There is a cabin there, and what we will do is, we will cut a trail so that we can skirt around the sides of the wetlands. We can abide by the rules and regulations and we will not get into trouble. Fair enough!

They went to the local government service centre or the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods, I am not sure; wherever they get the permit. They told them their plan and they asked them how they would go about it. They said: Fair enough. What you have to do is pay a $100 fee in order to cut this trail. They looked at it and said: Well, there are four of us, so that is twenty-five dollars each. Okay. We are going to write out the check for $100 in order to get the permit to cut the trail.

When they started to cut the trail, all of the sudden a forestry official showed up and he said: Boys, what are you doing? They said: We are cutting a trail to abide by the rules and regulations of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. He said: Do you have a permit to cut wood? No, we do not. We thought the $100 that we paid in order to get a permit to put the trail in would provide us with being allowed to cut wood. No, you need a permit, which at that particular time, I think, was twenty-something dollars. They said: Okay. They went and they bought their permit. They cut wood that year and they got part of the trail finished, but then they left it.

They went back the next year to start cutting and finishing their trail again. As they started to cut their trail, Madam Speaker, the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods showed up again and they said: Boys, you are cutting your trail. They said: Yes. Do you have a permit? Yes, we got a permit, we bought it last year. But that permit is no good now, because the year has expired. You have to buy another permit. So, they went and they paid their twenty-something dollars, twenty-one, twenty-two dollars for a cutting permit. They started to again cut their trail.

Just listen to me, it gets better. Then they came to a stream, they had to pass over a stream. So, the forestry fellow said: When you get to that stream up ahead there you better come in and get a permit because it is going to cost you another $100 in order to get a permit to build a little bridge over that stream, in order to stay away from the water.

They went to the Department of Forestry and they bought the permit, another $100. As they started cutting the trail and getting a little bit further, they came upon another stream. Well, they said, that is not a problem, we have already paid the $100. Not so, Madam Speaker. Then they had to go and pay another $100. So they figured they better walk ahead and see how many streams that they had to go over. There were four streams that they had to pass over in order to get to their cabin. Now it is up to another $400. They said: We better start asking questions here now. We better see where this ends up.

They said: Okay, we know we are up to almost $600 in fees already, abiding by government rules and regulations. They went to forestry and they said: Now, you know what happens when you get that trail cut; you have to register the trail. It is going to cost you another $100 to register the trail. They said: Well, if we register the trail - we are after paying $400 for bridges, we paid $100 in the beginning to get the permit to cut the trail, we are after spending another forty-two dollars for permits to cut the wood, and now we have to pay $100 to register the trail, surely goodness, it is our trail after that. No, it is not your trail. Those are only the fees that we are going to charge you in order to cross the brooks, cut the wood, register the trail, to abide by the rules and regulations of government.

Madam Speaker, Is that any way to have people abide by government rules and regulations, I say to people opposite? That is ridiculous.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Mary Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to finish up, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: I did not get in, but I understand I will have my chance to talk another twenty minutes later tonight, and probably twice as long.

Here is a example - the government, that most people over there were a part of, was going to do away with red tape. They were going to do away with all those foolish fees, and having to go here and there in order to get permits. It was going to be one-stop shopping. Here was a group of four people who were going to abide by rules and regulations, regulations that, that government brought in and implemented as legislation, the laws of the land, and it was going to cost those people $600 to abide by rules and regulations. You wonder why people are fed up with the present government. You wonder why people are saying that they want a change. When you listen to those kinds of stories out there, how can you stand here and support that kind of government and support those kinds of rules and regulations, when a group of people are only asking that they be allowed to live by the rules of the land.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I intend to take a few moments this afternoon to discuss, in some detail, the Budget process. While I am standing too, having been here since 1989, and having watched a record created by former member, Neil Windsor, who was my member of the House of Assembly at the time, it is fabulous to believe that another hon. member could stand and actually speak for twelve hours on the Budget. What is more remarkable to me is that he did not make sense all the time, but to himself he made sense most of the time. Twelve hours debate on one subject is something to be commended for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, what was it that this government attempted to accomplish in this Budget? Very simple. We looked for a way to seek a balance in terms of what it was we intended to take from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed - yes, take, because it comes in taxes. I have never believed, for example, that those of us who are a part of this system are the real taxpayers. We are not. We are the beneficiaries of the people who are the real taxpayers. We do not generate the income as an employee at a Dominion Store would, or an employee in the forest industries. We are the beneficiaries of what comes from their toils.

To come back to what I was speaking about, Madam Speaker, striking a balance, trying to find that balance in terms of what it is that we can reach into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in taxes and other fees and services - what is it we can take from them, while at the same time maintaining the basic necessities of life that they require.

There isn’t a Newfoundlander and Labradorian who does not realize and accept that 68.9 per cent of every dollar that this government spends is either spent in health, education, social services or the social sector; 68.9 cents of every dollar goes to those three commodities alone. Why is it that this government is willing to have such a commitment to health, education and our social structure? Madam Speaker, it is obvious. We know that we have to maintain, and yet strengthen, the health system in this Province. We know that we have to ensure that our children and our grandchildren have accessible to them an education equal to, and indeed second to none, in this country of Canada.

With respect to our social structure, we have to ensure that the needs of those who are less fortunate than ourselves, and indeed those who but for fortune could very well be us, those of us who knew what it was like to grow up in large families knowing that the support was there of our friends and neighbors - and although that diminishes more and more as society marches on, government has to, more and more, intercede on their behalf, and 68.9 cents of every dollar goes to meet those.

What of the employees? I listened to my colleagues in the Opposition talk about the expenditures that we are making. Never enough! The expenditures that we should be making. Never enough! I believe at last count the list of items is now up to some sixty-five or sixty-six. Everyday we are reminded that $300 million will be required to bring all of the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador up to standard. That is not information that those of us who sit in government are not aware of. We know those numbers, but all I hear from my colleagues in the Opposition are the numbers. I do not hear the solutions as to where the money would come from.

To listen to my colleagues in the Opposition, I believe that probably we should take even more money from the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. We should ask them to dig deeper into their pockets, and take every last cent that we can from them to try to meet the ever growing list of needs that our Opposition colleagues have; sixty-five issues that would total up to possibly another $2 billion, and maybe more. I have run out of being able to keep track of what they are looking for.

How do we meet the needs of those who are employed within the civil service, those who meet the needs, whether it is in the hospitals, whether it is here in the Confederation Building, or all the other areas throughout Newfoundland and Labrador where our employees face various aspects everyday in their own lives?

I was here in 1989 when we asked the people of this Province, those who work within the system, to come with us and try to find a way to balance the books, to try to find a way to get under control the debt that this Province was facing day in and day out, and indeed, year in and year out. Drastic steps were taken. We had rollbacks, we had wage freezes. We asked the people who worked for government to walk with us for what we thought would be three or four years. That went on to seven or eight years, not seeing any increases in their salary. This year, I am delighted that we were able to offer the nurses, that we are able to offer those in other services within the health care, that we are able to offer those who work in other areas of government, an increase that they justly deserve. It still has to be paid for. We still have to find the money in order to write those paycheques at the end of every two-week cycle. But, they deserve them. I would not want to see this government redirect those funds into some other service because those people have given, I guess, their lives and their commitment over the last eight or ten years, waiting for an opportunity where we would recognize their commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those commitments have been made by them, and only rightfully so that we would, in turn, make a commitment to bring their salaries and their incomes back on stream again.

The priorities that we have set forward in this Budget were for people. The priorities were on people. The priorities: health, education and the other social needs that people face in this Province, that is where the needs were. Those were the priorities we set, and those were the commitments that we made.

You have to ask yourself, if you listen to Question Period, or if you are here listening to the petitions that come one after the other - and, by the nature of this Parliament, by the nature of this Legislature, petitions are more than welcome. Bringing the needs of your constituents forward, that is what we are expected to do. When they ask us to bring that to the floor of this Legislature, we are expected to do it and we should. But, somewhere tempered within our requests for more roads, to fix the wharves up within various communities, to spend money in other services that are required, we reach a point where we also on the government side have to ask ourselves: How many times are we willing to dip into the pockets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? We believe in trying to strike a balance between what it is we have to ask from the people of this Province and the needs that they are requiring in health, education and other areas. But, we have found that balance where indeed they can hold more of the money that they earn each year, while at the same time knowing full well that, if there is an emergency, the hospital will be there to meet it. If a child needs help in school, the education system is there, tailor-made, to meet their needs as well.

Where do we go from here? Where do we go in terms of looking to implement this Budget? Well, we have seen many days whereby we have been trying to get this Budget approved, and a good Budget. A Budget that was well thought out, a Budget that looked at the needs of individuals, the needs of our employees, the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A Budget that said: What will our priorities be for some fifteen departments of government? In the winter time, we all know there are highways that have to be cleared. We all know that the ploughs have to be out there. The salt and the sand has to be spread. We all know that those kinds of things go on day in and day out, whether it is a licence, a permit, renewing your driver’s licence, getting the licence plates for the new vehicle. Regardless, those services have to be met on an ongoing basis. But what was the one item that this government said: This will be the first priority; this will take the largest amount of money required; this will, if need be, climb all the way up to $1.5 billion? Health. A very simple answer. When we met as a caucus, when we met as a government, what would be the priority of this government? Resounding answer, unified answered, collective, full agreement. Health was the answer. And, would $1.5 billion do it? Let’s find out if it can. If not, we will have to look to cut the cloth of other departments to make sure that the health needs are met. Have we met them all? No. Have we covered off every issue that we would like to cover off in health? No. Are we sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador’s basic needs are met? Yes. Yes.

Questions day after day after day about some other aspect of health; $1.5 billion dollars has been injected into the health this year and we are proud of that number. We are pleased with that number, and I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are in agreement with the commitment that we have made.

One of the concerns that I talked about in terms of the Budget when we were doing the Resource Estimates is the amount of money that we actually allocate to meet the resource needs of this Province. By that I mean: What are we using in terms of generating monies for the people of this Province? What are we doing to ensure that the fishery remains strong? What are we doing to find ways for new dollars to be generated in this Province? The resource is? What is it? How much are we spending annually to ensure that our Industry Department can reach out, look for new opportunities for business to come to this Province? What is it we are doing to support the Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister in his push to make it a strong fisheries industry? What is it we are doing to meet the needs of the Forestry Minister to ensure that the exports and the dollars that come back to us are there? Well, our social needs are so high that again this year we are into resources of roughly 5 per cent being spent to shore up those departments; to meet the needs of those departments in terms of being able to reach out and generate new money. I firmly believe there should be more. I firmly believe that not less than 10 per cent of the Province’s fiscal budget should be assigned to the resource sector: that sector which generates new money; that sector which generates the money, whether it is a small scale in terms of our export industries, new growth industries, supporting the forestry, supporting the fishery. It was an argument that we had. Well, perhaps a discussion that we had, as opposed to an argument. My colleagues shook their heads and said: Great idea, but health comes first. The monies that could have been utilized in those areas, we knew we had to spend in health, $1.5 billion.

Madam Speaker, we have been able to, though, maintain other areas. For example, $21.5 million into the Municipal Operating Grants; the grants that in some cases can be large or small but that go into the smaller municipalities throughout the Province to help support the needs that take place in those communities. Those grants which are so important to the smaller towns because they help offset what they are able to collect themselves. They help offset the fact that yes, indeed, because of the demise of the fishery in 1992, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had to leave this Province. It is not something that we are happy about, but their willingness and their tenacity to go somewhere else to find work speaks loudly about the people of this Province, speaks loudly about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and their work ethic. A work ethic that is strong enough to take them out of their homes and out of their communities.

We forget in this Province, when we talk about the demise of the fishery in 1992, that not only did the fishermen come in off the waters but the fish plant workers went home as well. The transportation companies, those who operate tractor trailers, found the following day a drop in their business that in some cases went as high as 80 per cent, and in some cases the individuals actually went out of business because the fishery stopped on a day in 1992.

What we tend to forget when we talk about the close of the fishery back then, and the out-migration that has taken place since, is that it was equal to waking up tomorrow morning in Ontario and reading a headline in one of the national newspapers that says the auto industry is closed. The auto industry in Ontario is now closed.

The demise that we saw is equivalent to that kind of an announcement and, because of that, we had to reach into our own beings and say: How do we respond and how do we react to that? Yes, we did have out-migration because of it but, you know, out-migration is not new to Newfoundland and Labrador. Prior to 1949, Boston was probably our largest city. Go visit Gloucester and those fishing communities today, and half their grandfathers and grandparents are Newfoundlanders. After 1949, Toronto became Newfoundland’s largest city.

I know in my own District of Bell Island, after the sixties when the mines closed there, Cambridge, Ontario, became the mecca for Bell Islanders; and they still come home every year to enjoy to the island. The still come back. They still support various aspects of the island, such as the Boys and Girls Club.

Today, many Newfoundlanders would be found in Fort McMurray where, indeed, the mayor of that community is a gentleman from Bishop’s Falls. The closure of the fishery in this Province is what caused the out-migration, not a policy of any given government, not a policy of what we have been trying to accomplish as a government in this Province. It is a result of an issue beyond our control.

Madam Speaker, the Budget is a good Budget. The Budget is a solid Budget. The Budget sets out people first. It sets out the priorities and the needs of individuals in this Province and meeting their needs to the maximum of our ability without having to reach into their pockets, reach into their paycheques, reach into their bank accounts and take more money from them.

I am sure as the Budget Debate goes on we will hear of another twenty-five or thirty issues to get the current list from sixty-five up to ninety-five or 100 of the needs that the Opposition see. I hear the needs being explained. I hear the needs being talked about. I do not see or hear the solutions. I do not see you put forward a solution. I do not hear the solutions. I hear the complaints. I hear that there is not enough in health care, even though health care has gone up by about as much as $500 million, a full half billion dollars in the last six or seven years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: So there we are, $1.5 billion in health - full 68.9 per cent, virtually six-nine cents out of every dollar to meet the social fabric of this Province.

Madam Speaker, is it a Budget we are proud of? Yes. Is it a Budget being able to set the balance between the needs of the people of this Province and what we, as a government, can take from them? Yes. Are we proud of it? Indeed we are. Will it be passed? Yes, it will; not simply because we have a majority but because I am confident that even members in the Opposition understand that we have had to cut the cloth, cut the garment, to fit what we need.

AN HON. MEMBER: They will be voting for it.

MR. WALSH: They will be voting for it, as my hon. colleague said, before this is over.

Madam Speaker, with that I believe I have used enough time, although I have not finished yet. The Member for Cape St. Francis is anxious and I know that somewhere in our history we may be related, but we still have time.

Striking the Balance is what we have been able to do and I want to compliment, before I sit down, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board for the efforts -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: - that she, and her colleagues, have been able to put forward in meeting the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Madam Speaker, we had been able to strike the right balance.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The previous speaker, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, I know would love to be related but I do not believe that is the case anywhere in our history.

Madam Speaker, I was listening very attentively to the former speaker, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, and he talked about this Budget, how proud they are of this Budget. I do not see any reason why they should be proud of this Budget by any stretch of the imagination. I find it quite peculiar and strange, I suppose, in one way, that the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is starting to buy in and starting to believe their own propaganda, and that this side of the House has no solutions. He hears a request for this and a request for that but no solutions. I would recommend or suggest that the member go back to the 1999 election and again, look at our Blue Book. Look at our policies and look at the Red Book and compare. At the time, Madam Speaker, Peter Fenwick, the former Leader of the NDP, stated that our Blue Book had meat in it; it had content; it had substance, which the Liberal Red Book did not. I will get into that as the debate goes on this evening.

It is strange that the member also talks about us having no policy and no solutions, when we look at this Administration’s history. Let’s look at the waste of this Administration over the past few years. Let’s look at the priorities of this Administration. Let’s look at the lack of planning. A prime example of the lack of planning was Question Period today in this House of Assembly, where we heard the Leader of the Opposition ask the Minister of Environment questions with respect to the tire recycling. How much money has that cost us? How much money has that cost the taxpayers or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador since it was implemented? No planning put in place at all. We see the fruits of that today where the contractor who bid on this, who made a proposal, was awarded - we questioned it at the time back some months ago, our critic for environment, the history of this company. It has had court cases before the court, civil suits, what have you - and the way it was awarded. Again, what we see today is costing the taxpayers of this Province untold thousands of dollars and we do not know where it is going. We do not know where that money is going to be spent, Madam Speaker.

The previous speaker talks about being so proud of this Administration, of their previous budgets. What I have in my hand, Madam Speaker, is the highlights of the Budget. From my estimation, and I said it before, that this Budget, the 2002 Budget is a false document. It is a misleading document, and it is a dishonest document because we have this Administration talking about a $97 million deficit this year. In actual fact, and we seen it in previous years, what they say and what they do and what they say about the Budget and what it ends up being are two different things.

The Budget, the year before last, the Finance Minister came out and said that the deficit was going to be $22 million. When the Auditor General did her report at the end of that year, and the internal auditors of the government themselves came out and said it was closer to $250 million deficit. Last year the same Finance Minister said that the deficit would be $33 million or $35 million but in actual reality - and it is in the Auditor General’s report - a $350 million deficit. Now, Madam Speaker, how they can get up and talk about being so proud of this document, I do not understand how they can do it. I will get on to that in a few minutes.

Madam Speaker, there is something that I want to talk about and it deals, to a certain extent, with the relationship between this Administration and the federal government in Ottawa. I have here a letter that was sent the hon. Jane Stewart, PC, MP and the Minister of Human Resources for Canada and -

AN HON. MEMBER: It said PC?

MR. J. BYRNE: It said PC, the hon. Jane Stewart.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: Whatever. Freudian slip. MP.

MR. REID: Privy Council

MR. J. BYRNE: Privy Council, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. It would have come to me. Anyway, Minister of Human Resources Development Canada.

It is a very serious issue, and I think the Minister of Fisheries should really listen to this. It goes to the benefits from Human Resources Canada, and it goes to the sick benefits, Mr. Speaker - I notice now that the Speaker has changed - and the EI benefits and the Canada Pension disability benefits.

Now we know that the department has a Canada Pension disability fund or program that people who are disabled can apply for. We also have the EI program where people who become eligible under the EI program for sick benefits, can obtain fifteen weeks. That is all, fifteen weeks, if you are sick. Of course, it would depend on the illness in most people’s minds, but we also have maternity benefits where people can receive up to fifty weeks maternity benefits.

There is something inherently wrong in this system or in this program where someone who is really very ill, such as this lady in Corner Brook, Ms Marilyn Stowe, who had cancer, who was eligible for fifteen weeks of sick benefits, which expired in January, 2002, when she was undergoing chemotherapy, and yet an individual who is capable of working, who might have been on maternity leave or the like, can receive up to fifty weeks.

We believe, and the Member for Humber West wrote Jane Stewart and asked her to have a look at this policy, to look at this program and see if something can be done about it. There have not been any amendments or changes to this fifteen weeks EI sick benefit for over thirty years. Yet, we have had amendments to the maternity and family leave program within the past year to two years, where it was extended from I think it was six months to a year.

We believe, on this side of the House, that maybe the Minister of Finance and the government of the day, if they have a good relationship with Ottawa, with the federal government, their cousins in Ottawa, that they contact Jane Stewart, the minister, and ask that this program be looked at, that possible amendments be made to the legislation where it requires only fifteen weeks of benefits for an illness.

Again, if it is not a serious illness and you might be off for a month, or two or three months, that would apply, but for someone who is going to be off for maybe a year or two or three years, with a very serious illness, that certainly needs to be looked at. I would expect the government to do that.

I think that is enough said on that at this point in time. We certainly encourage the Minister of Finance and this Administration to contact their cousins in Ottawa, the federal government, and ask them to take a serious look at that EI program, and in particular to the fifteen weeks sick benefits for a person who has a prolonged serious illness, and hopefully they are going to do something about that.

Mr. Speaker, back to the Budget itself. Again, I think this is a false, misleading and a dishonest document. I have said it for a number of reasons. I find it strange that the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, when he was up talking about it, again, one side of the story. He was asking: Where are the solutions? How come there are no solutions from this side of the House?

Well, we have a habit of putting out the solutions and they are starting to adopt the solutions, always after the fact, never giving credit to this side of the House for recommending the solutions.

One, Mr. Speaker, is this: I just want to talk about where there is $12.8 million of waste in this Administration over the past few years. We had the Trans City situation, the cottage hospital contracts, which cost the people of this Province $4.2 million. Not one job created, $4.2 million extra, over and above what it should have cost the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We had the Atlantic Leasing contract, the Murray Premises, where it cost, from what we understand, again, over $4 million to the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. No jobs created, mismanagement, poor planning on behalf of this government. The Cabot 500 Celebrations, where we had a number of individuals, because basically of their political affiliations, were let go and that cost the people of this Province $1 million. We had the situation with Andy Wells and the Public Utilities Board costing the people of this Province $600,000. No jobs created, just payouts, nothing else. Then we have Tors Cove Excavating, $1 million. Again, where this government was taken to task, taken to court, and they had to pay out $1 million, as much as $35,000 to hire a Toronto lawyer. A Toronto lawyer took $35,000 out of this Province because of poor management and poor decisions on behalf of this Administration.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, this Budget is a false document. The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island talks about solutions. Well, maybe the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island should read the Auditor General’s report and maybe he might learn something from that, where the Auditor General says basically that this Administration, this government, is the least accountable government in Canada. No wonder the people in this Province are asking us, as an Opposition, to present petitions in this House on Voisey’s Bay, to bring a deal here before the House of Assembly for debate before the deal is signed, because the people of this Province do not trust this Administration.

We had the Auditor General saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I’ve got that.

- contrary to what the Premier is saying, Mr. Speaker, that this is an open and accountable government, the Auditor General, in her report, says the direct opposite. I will just say a few things here. The Auditor General says: our review has disclosed that, in all jurisdictions except this Province, an annual report is required to be tabled in the Legislature by departments and Crown agencies.

It goes on to say that true accountability requires that this information be provided to the House of Assembly. She says, while government has undertaken some initiatives to improve accountability within government, none of the initiatives undertaken by government require any of the plans, information or reports to be tabled in this House of Assembly.

The Premier will try to spin it out there that this is an open and accountable government, Mr. Speaker. Not so. The Auditor General says not so.

With respect to this Budget and previous Budgets, the Auditor General has stated in the past that this Administration, under the present Premier, the previous Premier, the present Premier who was minister with Premier Tobin before, continually breaking the Financial Administration Act. They are at it all the time, Mr. Speaker. How are they breaking the Financial Administration Act? Well, right here in Section 3.5 Non-Compliance with the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General says that, with respect to special warrants, they are continually using and abusing the special warrants.

Now, people out there may ask: What is a special warrant? Well, Mr. Speaker, in any budget -and we are the Budget Debate today - the Budget itself is the prime piece of legislation where government gets the approval of the House of Assembly to spend money on the different services within the civil service. There is a section under the Financial Administration Act that allows government, in extreme emergencies and in urgent situations, to spend money that is not accounted for in the Budget - as I said, in extreme situations - and bring it back to the House of Assembly at the very first opportunity.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had this Administration approve spending under the special warrants while the House of Assembly was open. There was absolutely no need for that. They could have brought the legislation to the House of Assembly for debate while the House was open; but, no, they approved special warrants when the House was open and they were supposed to bring it here and they did not. Complete abuse.

Mr. Speaker, you will notice, too, I think, that the Auditor General has stated that it is in the millions and millions of dollars. One year in particular, I believe it was last year, there was some $79 million approved in the last month. In March month $79 million was approved. Now, why do they do this? The Auditor General points it out. They do it because it affects the bottom line of the Budget. If they say they are going to have a deficit and they want to say a $30 million deficit, well then they can come and spend $80 million, and it is affecting the bottom line. They can either make a deficit or create a surplus, and they are completely abusing that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Voisey’s Bay while I am on my feet here today, and that is we have people in this Province presenting petitions to the Opposition. I find it more than passing strange that members on the other side of the House of Assembly, the government side, are not receiving petitions with respect to Voisey’s Bay; and wanting a debate in the House of Assembly before a deal is signed. The Premier is trying to spin it out there that they are going to bring it to the House of Assembly for debate and have a ratification here in the House of Assembly; not quite true. Only after a lot of pressure from this side of the House, pressure from the public, pressure from our ads, the PC Party on the television, that he decided to have a debate in the House. What he is not telling the people is that it is not a true ratification. If it were going to be a true debate in the House of Assembly he would bring it here before the deal is signed. Before it is signed, before it is binding on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He would do that. He is not planning on doing that. He will not even, Mr. Speaker, put a clause in the deal which says that it will be subject to approval of the House of Assembly. No, that is not even going in there. Why? What is he afraid of? What is the big rush on this? It has been going on for a few years now so why can’t he put a clause in this, that is in the proposal or in the agreement, or in the deal or in whatever?

The last day in the House of Assembly he said that he would bring the principles to the House of Assembly for debate. The principles of a deal. Now, is he going to bring the principles of a deal to the House? Is he going to bring a binding finding agreement to the House for debate or is he going to bring something else to the House of Assembly? We would prefer that he bring the deal which would be agreed upon between themselves, the government and Inco, to the House before it is finally signed by the Premier and made binding on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. But, no, that is not what he is going to do. Why are the people of this Province so mistrusting of this Administration? Well, I just touched on one with respect to the Auditor General, and I can understand why the people of this Province are afraid for this Administration to sign a deal.

Let’s talk about FPI. We had the Premier of the day standing in the House saying he wasn’t even interested enough to ask any questions, and what did we see happen last fall with respect to FPI? Only for the people got up against this and stopped it at that point in time - the Premier was not planning on doing it. No, he wasn’t planning on doing it, Mr. Speaker. Not at all.

Also, why do the people not trust this Administration and the Premier? Ottawa now is starting to question, I would think, this Administration. We see this Administration signing a deal, bringing legislation to the House of Assembly with the Labrador Initiative Fund. Ninety-seven million dollars was supposed to go to Labrador for their marine services and their roads. What is happening now? Taken out. Taken away. Put into general revenues, Mr. Speaker. We have members on the other side, government members in Labrador supporting this, that they are going to take $97 million away, put it in general revenues and use it to balance the Budget. That leads me to another point. Why? Is this a false document? Again, one shot fixes. We have the $97 million this year.

In previous years we saw this Administration taking the South Coast ferry funding, $50 million, thrown into the Budget to balance the Budget. We saw the Marine Atlantic, Labrador money taken and thrown into it. We saw the HST money taken, a one-shot deal, thrown into the Budget to balance the Budget at different years; and other issues.

Term 29, Mr. Speaker. Millions of dollars taken from Term 29 so many years in advance, twenty years, thrown in to balance the Budget. So, what does this do down the road? What we are going to see in the near future, when all of this is coming to a crunch - and it is coming very quickly. It is starting this year, when we saw the Minister of Finance take $97 million out of the Labrador Initiative Fund. It is coming to a crunch, where all of these one-shot deals, that is going to be a cumulative effect - and the Province now each year will have to come up with that money to replace this money that the federal government was pumping in every year. The federal government was pumping in money for the South Coast ferry system; the Labrador ferry system; Term 29; HST; the Labrador Initiative Fund. All of this money, that was being pumped into this Province every year, will not be happening anymore. Now the Province will have to come up with that money.

MR. SULLIVAN: Tens and tens of millions of dollars.

MR. J. BYRNE: We are talking tens and tens of millions, maybe $100 million a year easily. That is when the crunch is going to come, but for some reason or other the people on the other side of the House cannot seem to phantom that, cannot seem to understand it.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

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

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

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker. I know that they want me to clue up on the other side because we know the truth is hard to take.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and participate in this debate. Over the last number of days we have all sat in this Chamber and listened to hon. members opposite talk about the Budget and try to paint a picture that this is a Budget that is showing no vision, it is a Budget that has no substance and, indeed, does not provide for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that this Budget is a good document. The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has done an exceptional job under some very difficult circumstances in bringing together a good balance. The interesting thing as well as we have sat in the House for the last number of days and weeks, we listened to Opposition members rise and slam the Budget and indicate that this is a Budget that is spending too much. We have heard them suggest that in terms of the arrangements which we have made with our public sector workers -I have heard them in this House side with some of the commentary that we have read in the papers suggesting that we have paid our employees too much, that the agreements which we have concluded with them are, in fact, not in the best interests of the people of this Province. I guess, by implication, we could certainly assume that if they were in our position, or if they were to become government, then they would move to cancel, in fact, the agreements which have been entered into with our workers.

Mr. Speaker, just to speak to that issue alone, let me say that after going through many years of restraint, we, as a government, have tried to recognize and respond to the very real need that we see in terms of offering our valued employees the type of compensation package which, first of all, we feel that they deserve and they need and, secondly, Mr. Speaker, that we -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister just stated something that was completely incorrect. We have never indicated any complaints on the size of the public sector settlement. In fact, what we have indicated is that this government should have budgeted for an amount that they were intending to give, not to go ahead and not budget for it and then incur it in expense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the only point we made.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as usual, the hon. Member for Ferryland on no point of order. It is alright when he is on his feet and he is having his go, which we endured for days and days. I certainly would not be up and boasting if I spoke for twelve hours and actually shared nothing, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the agreement which we have concluded with our public sector workers, we are, in fact, delighted to have been able to, at this point in time, offer them a compensation package which we feel they deserve. Also, Mr. Speaker, in terms of speaking from my own department, we recognize and constantly it is a challenge that we are faced with, trying to provide a compensation package that will ensure that our workers stay in our employ. We recognize that, for many of our professionals, they do have other options. They are constantly being recruited from other areas of this country and indeed internationally. In connection with that, we recognize that we have to provide them with a compensation package which will entice them and encourage them to remain here in this Province to serve the people of this Province on into the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget that we have seen tabled in this House this year has, as I indicated, struck a balance in terms of trying to address the many needs that are out there. In terms of my own department, again this year we have seen the budget grow. This year some $1.42 billion committed to health care in this Province, the largest single department containing the bulk of the expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, we still hear on a constant basis, certainly coming from hon. members opposite and from certain quarters within the general public, that there are increasing needs in terms of health care; and indeed there are areas where we feel we need to move to address some very serious concerns.

Just this past Friday, Mr. Speaker, accompanied by my colleagues from the West Coast, Mr. Mercer and Mr. Joyce, I had occasion to visit the Corner Brook area to have a first-hand look at the long-term care facilities in that area. This was in response, as I indicated, to a request from my colleagues from that area and also from the committee that has been struck out there in that region to look at the long-term needs for the residents of that area.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Humber Valley met with me in the morning. We had occasion to visit the clinic in Deer Lake which is certainly a fine example, Mr. Speaker, of where we are offering a first-rate service for a very modest investment. I suggested to the hon. member there, and with the community representatives who run that clinic, that in fact what they have and are doing in Deer Lake is a model that we can certainly look at that we might be able to use elsewhere in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House, we are at the present time moving forward with a Strategic Health Plan for this Province and, when that rolls out, within that plan we will lay down the parameters for the delivery of health care services throughout the Province. We will look at the clustering of services where primary, secondary and tertiary services should be provided. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is at all times incumbent on all of us to try to ensure that we are making the maximum use of the resources that we do have available to us, for it is certain, Mr. Speaker, that - as I have said in this House and I have repeated outside when I have had opportunities to do so - we are indeed challenged. There is, at the present time, a limit to the amount of resources that we have available to us to provide the programs to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you and to all hon. members of this House, and indeed to the people of this Province, that at the present time with some forty-five cents of every program dollar being expended in the area of health care, first of all that speaks to the commitment of this government to providing good health care services to the people of the Province, but also, Mr. Speaker, it says to all of us that in fact it speaks to the magnitude of the problem. For I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have the wherewithal where we can move beyond that forty-five cents. In fact, at forty-five cents of every program dollar, I suggest that we are maxed out in terms of what we have available.

What does that mean for us, and what do we have to turn to, to try to meet the increased cost and the increased demands? There are two things, Mr. Speaker. First of all, certainly in terms of the delivery of the programs, we recognize that in health care, as in all services of government, and without the community generally, costs increase on a regular basis. The program that we deliver this year, in all probably, next year will cost us more. We also recognize that, as the costs rise and as the demand rises - because every year as well we are seeing increased demands for additional services, for new services that we have not offered - in terms of trying to address these two different but yet important areas, therein lies a challenge especially to us within health care but certainly within government generally. No one would suggest, in fact, that the task is easy.

Certainly I, as Minister of Health and Community Services, do not underestimate the magnitude of the challenges that are faced by the corporations and the different boards who deliver these services on behalf of the people of the Province. For in fact we, as a government, and this department, our role is to provide funding to these boards. They, in turn, make the decisions as to how that money is spent. I would have to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have great admiration and respect for the job that they do.

Last year, the hon, members of this House will recall that when the budgets were dispersed, there was some concern immediately thereafter that there was a significant shortfall, and the boards were asked to go back. When they came forward with their recast budgets, there was a significant difference in the recast budgets than what they had been originally provided with. The department went back to them and suggested that they take a second look to try to bring their figures more in line with those which we had allocated.

Mr. Speaker, it was not done from the point of view that this was something that the department or government wanted to do, but I would suggest it was a matter of dealing with the reality that we are all faced with, that we do not have unlimited resources, that there is a limit to the amount of money that we have available to expend, whether it is in health care, whether it is in roads, whether it is in municipal infrastructure. The funds are not unlimited.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to remind ourselves, as well, that with 45 cents on every program dollar going into health care and this amount increasing year over year, it does mean, in effect, that a smaller portion is available to go into these other program areas, into our local roads program and into our municipal infrastructure. Yet, while the Opposition decry the fact that the Budget which we have produced is not a good Budget, does not reflect the realities in this Province, day after day we see the hon. members rise in their place and present petitions calling for increased expenditures in these very areas.

I would say to the hon. member, and certainly to the people of the Province, through you, Mr. Speaker, that in fact, again, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot be suggesting on one hand that we are spending too much and then on the other hand calling upon government to increase its expenditures. It just does not work that way. That is not the reality, that is not the way the budgetary process functions, and that is certainly not the way that we provide good government to the people of this Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is certainly what this government is all about, making the difficult decisions, trying to ensure the credibility of all of our programs and trying to ensure that the people of this Province, particularly in the area of health care, will have available to them, on a timely fashion, any of the services that they require or that they need, at any given time. That, Mr. Speaker, is a challenge to this government, that is a challenge to this department and a challenge to this minister, who certainly will see to it that we do maintain the good health care services that we have available in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, just let me speak to that for just a minute. Again, as well, if you listen to some of the critics out there, you would not but believe that the health care service that we have in this Province is secondary in nature and is certainly not up to the quality of that elsewhere, that is available elsewhere in this country. Well, I suggest to you, and I say to the people of the Province, nothing could be further from the truth.

As a matter of fact, it is kind of interesting that last week, while attending a function here in St. John’s, I had occasion to be approached by a lady who had lived for some time in the Province of New Brunswick. She came up to me and made that very point, and said to me: I find it strange, in the time that I have been in this Province, to hear so many people who are critical of the health care service in this Province. What she said to me was: I would suggest that they go to New Brunswick, live there for awhile, and then they would better appreciate what we have available here.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is worthwhile for all of us to realize, when we look at the health care system in this Province, it is a matter of seeing the glass as half full or half empty. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that certainly at the present time, the service we are offering in this Province, the caliber of the professionals that we have working for us on behalf of the people of the Province, is second to none and that nobody in this Province needs to be concerned that anything they will need in the area of health care will not be available to them in a timely fashion if and when the need arises.

Mr. Speaker, just a few general facts with regard to the health care budget generally, and some of the things, I think, we need to remind ourselves of. Putting it in context, it is all right to talk about forty-five cents of every program dollars, or almost, approximately $1.5 billion, but, Mr. Speaker, in fact, our spending on a per capita basis exceeds the national per capita by some - the national per capita is $2,200, the per capita expenditure as in health care in this Province is $2,400. We, in fact, exceed the national per capita. Mr. Speaker, the institutions that we have available to us, there is no doubt that we are moving to improve them. We are constantly upgrading the infrastructure that is available to us. We are making strategic investments, especially on the institutional side.

Presently, in my own area of the Province, we have a new modern hospital under construction in Stephenville, which will serve the people of that area for many years to come. My colleague from Fogo - we are in the process of constructing a new hospital down there. We are completing construction on the new hospital in Gander. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on.

In fact, in addition to wanting to have first-rate facilities available to serve the people of our Province, we also recognize that having new modern facilities is an important part of our efforts to recruit and retain trained professionals to come and live and work with us. A lot of these people, we have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, especially a lot of these very highly trained professionals, do have other options. When we are out competing with the other provinces in this country and our neighbour to the South, we have to recognize that we certainly have to be prepared to hustle if we want to get out there and convince these people that they should consider coming to Newfoundland to live and work among us. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, we have done very well. Part of that is because we are endeavouring to try to provide first-rate health care facilities in this Province so that people who come here will be able to find the proper environment here with the necessary infrastructure, the necessary equipment, to allow them to utilize the skills which they have taken years to hone. So, Mr. Speaker, that certainly is an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, just to speak briefly, again, about our efforts to try to be as efficient as we can and as good stewards as we can in terms of how we dispense and disperse the money that is available to us. We have heard in this House, repeatedly, over a number of weeks, Opposition members rise and question the Hay report; not just question, but rise, condemn the report, and say we should throw it out, it is another colossal waste of money. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is strange considering that for years I sat in this House and saw hon. members opposite stand up repeatedly, and point out that they knew of situations where millions of dollars could be saved if we - I notice the hon. Member for Ferryland at least agrees with that. It is in the millions.

Mr. Speaker, hon. Members in this House rose repeatedly, to point out that there were significant savings that could be had in the health care system. So, in response to that, last year when the Health Care Corporation for St. John’s was challenged in trying to balance their budget, a decision was made to retain a highly regarded and internationally known consulting group to come in and look at that operation, to make a determination as to whether or not they could find efficiencies within that operation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the report which they produced which contained some 119 recommendations, does, in fact, identify within the report - they concluded that there is some $30 million, in their estimation, that could be saved.

Now, Mr. Speaker, does this minister or does this department feel that $30 million is an appropriate number? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. What we have done is we have asked the Health Care Corporation to, in fact, take the recommendations that are there, to review and to report back to us as to where they see some of things they have found would have some application. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, even if it only saves us $2 million or $3 million in terms of efficiencies, then the exercise would have been worthwhile. In the meantime, as I have already indicated, I certainly regret that some of our groups really felt that they were not properly reflected within that report, and that is unfortunate. I mean this is something that we would have hoped to avoid but unfortunately that was not to be.

Mr. Speaker the intent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

MR. SMITH: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Would the hon. member like me to start from the beginning?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, to the report; the report was commissioned to look at the corporation, to look at it closely, examine all aspects, and to try to determine, as I indicated, where some efficiencies might be realized.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have also in terms of the - there is a Goss Gilroy study which is looking at the community health boards as well, for the very same reason, Mr. Speaker, to try to determine if there are efficiencies there. With the Hay report, while it was specifically geared towards the St. John’s Health Care Corporation, we are also hoping that if there are things we learn from that report and if there are models of service delivery that are contained within that which might have some application, after we have done the review we will certainly look at it from the point of view, make it available to the other health care corporations to see if in fact there is anything there that could have some application to their own operations. But, Mr. Speaker, the intent again is to try to ensure that whatever efficiencies can be realized within the delivery of health care services are in fact realized.

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon all of us, all of us who sit in this House, we do not at any time deny the challenges with which we are faced, but the issue is that we have to try to make sure the monies that are available are spent as well as they can or as efficiently spent as they can.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the health care corporation, our intent is to ensure, as I indicated earlier, that good health care is made available in a timely fashion to all of the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to get up today and have a few words to say about the Budget, in the Budget Debate. I was just reading through some of the bills that we had there and listening to the Minister of Health and Community Services and some of the comments that he made on public service workers. It is an important issue. I have a lot of respect for our public service workers. The people that I deal with through the system in government, I have to say to them: Congratulations for the commitment that our public service workers have made to this Province.

Recognizing that, Mr. Speaker, we know that if a lot of these workers worked in the public sector then they probably would be getting a lot more money than what they are getting working for government. I have to say that. Congratulations to all of our public service workers in this Province and the commitment that they are making to the people of this Province; having to deal with sometimes very harsh conditions, very sad conditions, when they do not have the resources, the tools, the equipment to do their jobs in the most diligent way and the most cost effective way. We all know if you do not have the right tools to do the job then the job will not be done in the best way possible. We can see that all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we want to look in each department we can certainly see that.

Mr. Speaker, I can also say that I do congratulate and thank the public service pensioners. Over the last three years or so since I have been here, I have learned to respect and appreciate our public service pensioners. Lots of times they have come here and had peaceful demonstrations, and tried to educate us in what is important in their lives. These pensioners have to live in a world on a fixed income; an income that some are finding it very difficult to stay in their communities, very difficult to provide the necessities of life that they expect because they have worked hard in the years past and they have provided a lot of good services to the people of this Province. I think we cannot forget that. We cannot turn out backs on our public service pensioners. We must make sure that in all budgets there are some figures there that could address the problems, not only of our workers, our current employed workers in our system today and future years, but when they retire. When they go on to do something else in their lives after retirement and they want a sense security, knowing that we appreciate and we will take care of their future as long as they are living in this Province, and they are alive and contributing to our economy in this Province, because that is important too, Mr. Speaker.

As I was going down through some of the Budget figures there, I was reading down through Bill 2, I looked at the Interim Supply amounts; and Bill 3, on the defrayed supply amounts and $3,463,899,300, that is a lot of money to spend on a Province.

When we go down through the different heads of expenditures there, we could look at the amounts spent in each department. When we see these amounts - I will just bring up some of them. I will mention some of the departments there and some of the amounts that are being spent; that is in the Budget for this year. I will take the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, just as an example, and go down through some of the things that I see happening in our Newfoundland and Labrador Housing problems in this Province. We have very big problems in our housing; very big problems for seniors who want to stay in their homes; problems from people who are on fixed incomes, whether they be retired public service pensioners or people on social assistance.

Everybody in this House of Assembly has to deal with the problems that we find in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. We have to see it. It is there. People are calling all of us. Mr. Speaker, with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation spending over $10 million in this Budget - people can sit there and they can listen to how we debate this Budget and talk about the figures, but I am sure that there are a lot of people in this Province today who are saying to themselves, while watching us and listening to us debate a Budget, that out of that $10 million why can’t I get my roof fixed? Why can’t I have my floor fixed? Why do I have to live in a house with sewage running underneath it, the roof caving in and so on?

These people are saying to themselves: Why have we got a government that is spending over $3 billion, with over $10 million that is being spent in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and why can’t I get one cent to fix my problem?

Mr. Speaker, we all know that there may not be enough money printed to fix every problem, but to the people who have problems, their problem is the most important problem in the world, to them. We must recognize that. We must make sure that, if there is a housing problem in this Province - maybe, is $10 million enough? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. Is it being spent right? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. It is our responsibility in this House to make sure that every cent in this $3.463899 billion is being spent in a responsible way. If there is a million dollars available to put into housing, to fix the roofs and floors - and I can just look back and see some of the cases in my district. A lady in Triton, Mrs. Roberts, is having a difficult time trying to deal with some of her problems in her house. Very cold winters. She is finding it very difficult to stay here. Heating costs are really high, but she does not qualify because it is not an emergency. She may be froze to death, she may be having a job to pay the heat bill, but, Mr. Speaker, it is not an emergency.

I do not know what constitutes an emergency with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Some are saying that if you have to move out, if there is no other choice, you cannot live in your house and you have to move out, then it is an emergency. But when you have buckets all around your floors and plastic everywhere trying to keep the draft out, and windows falling out, I would call that an emergency. So, we have to do something about it. We have to make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing recognize that their meaning of emergency and the meaning of emergency in the eyes of the public and the needs of the people is the same.

MR. MANNING: Most of them are senior citizens.

MR. HUNTER: My colleague here from Placentia & St. Mary’s says that most of them are senior citizens. I can agree to that somewhat. A lot of people in my - and this Mrs. Roberts I am talking about is a senior citizen. But, also, we have young families in every district who are depending on somebody to give them that little handout, or hand up, to live a little better in their homes. I have them. I have one man who called me the other day, forty-six years old, off work, sick, cannot work. He needs some help. He has nowhere to go. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize those things.

I can just go down through some of these, Mr. Speaker. Works, Services and Transportation, we are spending - I have to add up these figures now, Mr. Speaker - about $270 million in Works, Services and Transportation. That is what is in the Budget. Provincial roads in this Province today only get about $18 million to spend on the road conditions in this Province. Unbelievable, such a small amount of money being spent on our provincial roads. We cannot catch up, we will not catch up, and if we do not do something within the next few years, Mr. Speaker, then I do not think we will ever catch up on repairing and rebuilding our roads in this Province; because, with that amount, less than $20 million, I could use that just on Route 380 and Route 390 alone.

MR. WALSH: Take it from the hospitals (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Jim Walsh said, take it from the hospitals.

MR. HUNTER: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is shouting out across the way: Take it from the hospitals.

We do not want to do that. We do not want to take money from health care. We have $1.4 billion in the health care now and we want to be responsible enough where we spend almost $3.5 billion, but cut that pie up in a way where we will not have to take money from the hospitals and health care. We cannot do that. The health care in this Province is in bad enough condition now, I say to the member. We cannot be taking money from our health care, but we have to make sure that this $3.5 billion is spent in a way that we can alleviate a lot of these problems, we can attend to a lot of the problems in these different figures.

Sometimes by investing money we can create more money; we can have more new money come back into the coffers of the Province. I know, like in these figures here - well, Tourism, Culture and Recreation got about $34 million budgeted for that, Mr. Speaker. Tourism brings in a lot of money in this Province, close to $100 million. If we invest and spend the money wisely enough, we can increase the amount of money coming into our finances in this Province and we could have new money, Mr. Speaker, because that is what it is going to take. It is going to take new money to do the necessary things that we need done in our Budget. That new money comes from getting maximum benefits from our resources, Mr. Speaker. We all recognize that, that this new money makes the pie bigger; and, by the pie being bigger, we have bigger portions for each department and we can fix more problems. We know that. That is not too hard to understand. So, the new money has to come from resources, Mr. Speaker.

We have been presenting in this House, in the last couple of weeks, petitions with thousands of names on them with respect to the Voisey’s Bay development. Those thousands of people are smart enough to know that we have to get the maximum benefits from those resources.

This Budget that we have here today could be a bigger Budget, it could be a balanced Budget, we could have more problems fixed, and, we do not have to the necessary things that the government is trying to do. They are trying to introduce a bill now that is going to take another $200 million, another $200 million to add on to this Budget, plus the special warrants, the $51-odd million and the $79 million last year, to add on to this Budget which is going to increase the debt. This Province is going to be faced with a long-term debt of over $7 billion and a capital debt of almost $500 million.

The people on the government side do not want to admit it. They are trying to juggle the figures around to make it look like this Budget is as close as they can get to a balanced Budget. They are trying to take the $97 million from Labrador to apply to this Budget. They are trying to take another $107 million out of the $200 million to spend, and $93 million to deduct from the deficit in this Budget so that we would have a less deficit.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are here. The facts are in the Budget. The facts are there that, if we keep spending and spending but that pie does not get bigger then we have a big problem, we are in trouble. We need that money. We need the money for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. We need the money for health care. We need the money to spend on our seniors. We need seniors to get the best care that is possible to get.

I had a call this morning from the son of a senior who needs help. They are very frustrated, to a point where they get mad on the phone. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, they do not mind voicing their opinion. When they see a mom, eighty-nine years old, treated the way she is treated, strapped into a chair in hospital waiting for a bed in a seniors’ home somewhere, or continuous care facility, then the family have a right to be mad, they have a right to be frustrated. These people should have their interests taken care of. These people contributed all their lives. These people are seniors who worked from year to year contributing to our economy, paying taxes, and then when they get into their retired years, when they get to a point were they need more care, special care, then what can we do, Mr. Speaker? Can we just strap them in a chair and say: We will take care of you when we can. Some of these seniors may not live that long, and we have to give them the care they need now, the care that they are expecting now, they deserve now. We have to look to our resources to get that money to make sure that our seniors are taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, with all the petitions that we have been presenting in this House with respect to Voisey’s Bay, we have to recognize that Voisey’s Bay is a very important resource for this Province. It is a very important resource for Labrador. We have to make sure that Labrador is recognized first and foremost in this situation. I am pleased and proud to be a part of Labrador, not like some members, some people saying that Labrador is a part of Newfoundland. I look at it the other way, I am proud to be a part of Labrador. I am proud that the people of Labrador are there to protect their resources, to make sure that they get the maximum benefit from it. By doing that, Mr. Speaker, everybody in this Province benefits, every senior, every person on social services who needs help, who cannot work, who needs help to get their homes fixed, every patient in the hospital, everybody requiring health care and health services. They look at that as saying, we need money, we need money from our resources; with Labrador contributing $88,000 per capita to our GDP in this Province compared to $2,700 on the Island portion.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of Labrador. I am very proud of the people of Labrador, they contribute so much to this Province. For us to sit back and say that we are not going to present our petitions and we are not going to fight the government in bringing this deal to the House of Assembly, to have it debated before it is signed, Mr. Speaker - we have to know, the people of this Province have to know, that they are going to get the best benefit, the maximum benefit, for the resources in Voisey’s Bay. Not only the nickel in Voisey’s Bay is the most precious metal, Mr. Speaker, we see there are other metals in this development, in this deposit, the copper and cobalt and other minerals, that are very valuable minerals, Mr. Speaker. We have to recognize that there is more to Voisey’s Bay than just taking nickel concentrate to Thompson and Sudbury. The benefits of that would for the people in Sudbury and Thompson when we need the benefits here. We need the 300 or 400 jobs that the CEO of Inco said would happen in Thompson, Manitoba. We need those 300 or 400 jobs here.

We cannot sit by and let the Premier and this government sign a deal and then have gall enough to come back to this House and tell the people of this House and this Province that we will debate the parameters and the framework and the gist of the deal in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, what good is that going to be after the deal is signed?

I went and bought a new car last year, Mr. Speaker. If I went in and bought that car and paid money down for the car, paid cash down for the car, and walked away and said, I am coming back in a year’s time to negotiate a deal for that car, does that make sense? It does not make any sense in the world. The deal that is going to be signed now is a deal that is going to be binding. A deal is a deal is a deal. A contract is contract is a contract.

That is what was done in the Upper Churchill contract. When we signed a deal on the Upper Churchill, Mr. Speaker, that deal was a contract signed for the length of that contract. There are many more years, forty-odd years left in that contract, before we can sit down and renegotiate a better deal.

We cannot sit here and be a part of this House, to represent all the people in our districts and the people in this Province, sit back and say: Okay, Premier, you do what you want to do, we are going to sit back. We will come in and debate it after you sign a deal. It does not make sense to me, Mr. Speaker. It does not make one bit of sense in the world. Our leader is really in tune to what is going on with this deal Our caucus is in tune with what is going on with this deal. The members on the government side, the members are in tune, but they will not admit it. They all said in Estimates, when we were in our Estimates Committee, Mr. Speaker. I asked many questions when we did the Mines and Energy Estimates. The members on the government side did not open their mouths once, never asked one question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

MR. HUNTER: Could I have a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HUNTER: I am going to get another opportunity to speak again, but, Mr. Speaker, I have something to say that I will say the next time I speak with the Estimates Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today and add a few words to the debate that is taking place on the Budget and to make a few comments on what has been said here in the House today concerning this Budget.

I would like to start off, Mr. Speaker, by saying that a lot of the problems we are experiencing in this Province today are really a direct result of our relationship with Ottawa as it relates to the equalization formula and the ways that we lose money back. It is a system that is very unfair to provinces like ours, because it seems to me that no matter what happens, when everything is said and done, no matter what developments take place, we can be no better off at the end of the day because of the clawback from Ottawa and the effect that has upon this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out a couple of things in the beginning. You know, in the late 1700s, the population census that was done at that time in this Province gave us a population of 60,000 people, and today, some 220 years later, we are still only nine times that number with a population of barely over 500,000. So, that in itself, I think, Mr. Speaker, tells a story that in our early years we were being taken advantage of by England at that time, and since Confederation we have been taken advantage of, economically, in the very same way by Canada that England used to do to us in earlier days.

I think, if we look around this Province and we see all of the things that we have in terms of our resources, when we look at the mining operations that we have, when we look at the forestry and fishery, when we look at the vast resources of gas and oil that we have offshore, and realize that when all of these developments take place we are no better off financially as a Province than we would be, in fact, if these things were not happening in many ways, that is a sad reflection on what is happening in this Province and it also speaks volumes about the lack of secondary processing that takes place with the many resources that we have. There are many examples of that, Mr. Speaker.

We can look at the fishery and find out that we catch fish in this Province, we send them outside, and we buy back the value-added products in the grocery stores when we go shopping. There are lots of examples like that. The iron ore industry in Labrador West, for example, when the company decided they would reactivate their plant in Sept-Iles. It is something that has not happened to date, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say, and something that may not ever happen given the conditions of the iron ore industry today, but there are many things we can look at and point to and say: If we did more secondary processing in this Province then we would be much better off today than we are.

On the Budget itself, I would like to say, in spite of what we might think, this is not a slash-and-burn Budget that we have seen taking place in a lot of provinces across this country in recent years. It is not a slash-and-burn one. It is not one that inflicts a lot of hardship on the people who live here, but it certainly falls short in many areas of providing the things that people who live here need and require on a day-to-day basis.

When we look at, for example, our health care system and the many needs that people in this House are up talking about each and every day that we sit, and we look at the cost, the long-waiting lists of people who are trying to get in to have surgery done, and we look at the cost of travel to a major center to have our health needs taken care of, that is particularly acute in areas like I represent in Labrador West, where a plane fare from Wabush to St. John’s, at the present time, is $1,600. Even though there are medical rates in effect, it is still a significant amount of money when you have to travel out to have your health care needs met.

People do not know, when they come out, how long they will have to be here. They do not know what costs they are going to incur in terms of accommodations and meals, transportation around the city. All of these sorts of things add up to a lot of money for a lot of people who have to travel to mainly the St. John’s area to have their health care needs met. That is something that more attention should be paid to.

We do have a program in this Province called the non-emergency medical relief fund that provides 50 per cent of any expenses you incur over and above the first $500. That is certainly a benefit, I would say, but it also leaves people with the ability, or they have to have the ability in order to pay for this up front and get reimbursed some time down the road. You do not know how many trips a year you may have to make when you are confronting illnesses of a serious nature.

We also have to look at probably the most increasing burden on the health care system that will be in the future in terms - because we are all getting older, Mr. Speaker. None of us are getting any younger. When we look at our elderly, look at the home care needs that are required in the Province, the respite care that is required, it is an enormous amount of money, but there is also a responsibility on this government and the federal government to make sure that funding is in place to take care of the needs that people of the Province have as we grow older. As our parents and other people around us grow older, there are additional needs that will be required.

The whole health care cost is quite high. There is money available for that, there is no question, and Ottawa obviously has the money with the huge surpluses they are running these days. They have the money and they have the ability to help out the provinces to provide for a better health care system than we have now. That does not include privatizing the health care system, which is a move that is taking place in many provinces around this country today. It is quite a scary prospect when we have to look at our health being valued by how many dollars we have in our wallet, or how many credit cards, or what limits we have on them in order to obtain health care for our loved ones. It is a dangerous precedent that is being set in this country when some provinces are talking about privatizing their health care system.

If we look at the education costs in this Province today, Mr. Speaker, there has been a move to reduce tuition. That is certainly welcomed by students and parents in this Province today, but there are many other costs to education that are not being looked at, that are not being taken care of, particularly for people in rural areas, people in Labrador, who have to travel great distances, at great cost, in order to avail of post-secondary education. The cost of airline tickets, the cost of accommodations and meals while you are attending school, is certainly getting to be astronomical and there is no assistance whatsoever for that at the present time.

Some people are pointing, Mr. Speaker. If it is acceptable and permissible, I would adjourn debate until we resume and I will finish off when we come back.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recess until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House is now recessed until 7:00 p.m.

The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MADAM SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise to continue debate from where I left off when we adjourned for supper. As we adjourned, Madam Speaker, I was talking about the health care needs in this Province and how they are going to continually grow, particularly as it relates to home care for our seniors and respite care for the people of our Province, and the important role that it is going to play in the future and the costs that are associated with that.

Moving on to education; the cost of education today - as I was saying earlier about the high cost, particularly for those students who live outside the St. John’s area. The high cost of airline travel, room and board while you are away, your meals. All of these sorts of things add up to a very high cost, which is incurred by students through student loans or by parents by virtue of them paying for their children’s education. That is an enormous burden, both on the parents and on the students, to receive an education in today’s world.

One of the things that really irritates me when I think about the cost of education and the unemployment insurance fund - a fund that is owned by workers and employers in this country but is administered by the federal government who has tight control over that money and will not release any to students who have been -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: Members across are showing me a document that came in the mail today. I have a copy of that. It is quite a nice document; not quite as good as bringing people to Labrador to actually see the place but I admit to the minister, that it is quite a good brochure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I say to the minister, if we could only make it retroactive so that people could have it time when they plan their vacations for this year rather than waiting until now.

Getting back to the topic at hand, the Budget Debate, Madam Speaker, and talking about the EI fund; that should be used for educational training and the federal government has a tight control on that fund. Many students who qualify in every other respect for unemployment insurance, are not able to access this money when they are trying to further their education and better their lot in life, and that is a crime. That is a crime because it forces many people to drop out of school without continuing their education. What is even a bigger crime than that is the fact that on the forms that students fill out to try and receive unemployment insurance, the form itself is very misleading. The student who is applying answers the questions with complete honesty, only to find out that by doing that, they will be disqualified and not receive unemployment insurance. So the unemployment insurance fund - which is approaching by the end of this year probably in the neighborhood of $40 billion - should be used for young people to be able to access that money to further their education when they want to return to school after being in the workforce for a number of years.

We have to look at education, Madam Speaker, as an investment in our future, an investment in our young people; not looking at the cost of education, but providing the education through our institutions as a liability. As long as we look at it as a liability, then the younger people, the younger generations will continually pay the price and be saddled with a debt upon graduating that is probably equivalent to most of the mortgages that people in this House had while they were the same age.

The other things that I would like to touch on in the few minutes that I have remaining - some of the things that I have mentioned by way of petition and by way of Question Period throughout this session of the House are things like MS drugs and Alzheimer drugs that people need, but are quite expensive. Somehow or other this Province has to find the ability to be able to assist people in accessing these drugs to improve their lives. As I stated in my petitions each and every day pretty well, people who are affected with these diseases did not ask for them, they did not get them by doing horrible things or abusing themselves. They contracted these diseases by inheriting them or other means beyond their control. We are the only Province in this country who do not provide any type of assistance for people who are working hard for a living but do not have a drug plan, or have a drug plan with a maximum lifetime benefit. These people cannot afford these drugs and this Province should step forward and provide some type of assistance through a sliding scale co-op program that will enable them to take advantage of the drugs that are out there which can certainly improve their lifestyle.

Municipal grants for the municipalities in this Province; I am glad to say that this year in my district the towns have received municipal grants and they will be put towards good use in improving the infrastructure in the towns that have been lacking in the last few years. I am glad to see now that these grants are going to the Towns of Wabush and Labrador City and that this money can be used to improve the conditions throughout the towns.

The other subject I want to touch on, Madam Speaker, this one is really upsetting a lot of people throughout Labrador and that is the fact that this government took $97 million from the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund and put it into reducing the deficit. Now that is causing a lot of people in Labrador to question whether or not the Trans-Labrador Highway will ever be completed. Even though this government has said on repeated occasions that they commit to financing that road, from a Province perspective - even without any help from Ottawa over the next six years following the EIS study being completed - we do not believe for a second that this Province has the ability to do that.

If you look at the budget for Works, Services and Transportation for road upgrades and repairs in this Province, you will see that there is $22 million, $23 million a year that is spent throughout the entire Province. Now, rather than having a fund that we could draw on in Labrador to provide work on our roads and our transportation system, we now have to fight and vie for our share of that $22 million, $23 million, which is a pittance to start. Even the minister acknowledges that it does not go far enough and there is not enough money, nearly, to do the work that is required.

For example, the upgrading of a section of road in my district, a very important piece of road that a lot of people depend on for their livelihood, merchants and business people in other areas of Labrador depend on the road to get their goods and services delivered, this year there is a section of about 120 kilometres long that has totally deteriorated, not fit to drive over I say to the minister, and this year the minister says they are going to do twenty-five kilometres of that approximately 120 kilometre stretch. It does not go far enough. It does not go near enough and it is not good enough, particularly in view of the fact that we had $97 million to improve transportation in Labrador and the minister is only going to see to it that twenty-five kilometres of that section will be completed this year.

There are a lot of things that we need that this Budget did not provide. As I said in the beginning, I am glad to say and I acknowledge that this Budget is not the type of budget that is so called slash-and-burn that we have seen in other provinces across this country. It is not a budget that inflected a lot of hardship on a lot of people but there are still needs.

I will go back to what I said in the beginning when I began my debate on this Budget, that the biggest culprit and the people who are most responsible for the position that we find ourselves in today as a Province is the federal government. Somehow or another, by some means or other, the federal government has to change their position on the equalization formula for this Province because without that we are sentenced to a life that we have lived since we joined Confederation, one that is not in the best interest of the people of this Province. In order for us to move forward and really benefit from the different industries that we are able to develop, then that has to change to provide us with the ability to do that.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will wrap up my words on this debate. I know there are many other people who are waiting to take part.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just want to have a few words, to speak in the Budget Debate here this evening. Madam Speaker, for those of us or for those out there who are looking in and listening to the proceedings here in the House of Assembly, they must be somewhat confused. They must be very confused, because on the one hand we have the members opposite daily saying to us that this government, which I am a part of, is irresponsible fiscally, doing all kinds of mismanagement, doing almost a double set of books, saying that the AG says one thing, and so on and so forth. They must be very confused, Madam Speaker, because what they do know is that we just received an increase in our credit rating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: I do not know about anyone else, Madam Speaker, but I think if I were mismanaging the books of the Province, if I were spending money recklessly or doing questionable bookkeeping, I kind of think perhaps that maybe the bond rating agencies and the people who look at these matters might look at me and say: You are not doing things quite right. We are going to have to decrease your bond rating. But, Madam Speaker, what has happened is that our bond rating has gone up and people must be somewhat confused about that.

We also hear from time to time that the employment opportunities in this Province are not there but yet we see statistics coming out from independent agencies saying that there are more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working today in this Province than has ever been working before. In absolute numbers, not as percentages because when you talk about percentages it is quite easy to play with those numbers to a certain extent. You can perhaps explain them by saying that because of out-migration there are fewer people and so on and so forth. People out there must be very confused by some of the statements emanating from this hon. House of Assembly by members opposite.

Madam Speaker, just to make a point, in recent days and weeks the members on the other side have made a great deal to do about Bill 7, which is on our Order Paper. This is a bill simply to allow the government to borrow somewhere upwards of $200 million, an extraordinarily large amount of money. An extraordinary large amount of money, Madam Speaker, but if you look at the resolution accompanying the bill, it says very simply that it is a bill in relation to the raising of loans by the Province. It does not say anything about expenditures. Now the members opposite have made great statements about: we are going to borrow $200 million and do all matter of things with it. We are going to go out and not only cover off the deficit which we are projecting for this year, but we are going to raise all kinds of money for a slush fund into an election, and so on and so forth.

However, Madam Speaker, if you read into the resolution, it says very simply, "That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province the sum of $200,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew or refund securities issued under an Act of the province or that may be paid into the Newfoundland and Labrador Government Sinking Fund."

Madam Speaker, this bill, apart from the large numbers of dollars involved, is one of the most common bills to come before this House. As a matter of fact, one of the members opposite today, the Opposition House Leader, made reference to the fact that similar bills have been coming before this House for the past thirty years. That is factually correct. I am sure, if we were to check the Statutes of Newfoundland and Labrador, we would find similar bills for the last number of years. Now, the purpose of the bill simply is to raise funds to retire, renew or repay loans which are outstanding.

If you look at the 2002 Estimates, which is very much a public document, you will see in this Province - it is called Exhibit VII on page 13, in Roman numerals - how the expenditures of the Province are broken down. This is on current account. If you look at the numbers, you will find that the Department of Health, or health related issues, on current account consumes 30.2 per cent of the total provincial Budget, somewhere in the order of $1.161 billion. That is billion with a b.

The second largest expenditure in the breakdown is education, which accounts for some 19 per cent. Nineteen per cent of the total expenditure in the Province is spent on education, in the order of some $728 million.

Madam Speaker, the third largest item of expenditure on current accounts in the Province is titled: Debt Charges and Other Financial Expenses, accounting for some 14.8 per cent or $569 million per year. This is the amount that we are paying annually in interest charges to cover the accumulated debt of the Province from 1949 to 2002, or 2001 perhaps.

I am not much of a financial genius but I do know one thing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: I do know that if I have a car loan at the bank, for which I am being charged a 10 per cent or 12 per cent rate of interest, and an opportunity presents itself where I can borrow money at the rate of 6 per cent or 7 per cent, it makes a lot -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: I am coming to HFC in a second, if that is what you want me to talk about.

It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that any individual with any modicum of financial sense would know that if you can borrow money at the rate of 6 per cent or 7 per cent, for argument sake, and pay down a debt that is now currently charging you 12 per cent, it is very clear that you are going to be money in. You are going to save money. Even the eagle beagles on the other side and the financial geniuses would perhaps recognize that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You don’t have to be a financial genius to get a car loan charging 12 per cent. (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: I would say to my hon. colleague from St. John’s South, who spent a large part of his life selling used cars, I am sure he would know.

Madam Speaker, the point I am making very simply is that we are expending in this Province today, some $569 million annually, simply to service the accumulated debt from 1949 to 2002. If one wanted to get some of the details of that in the Estimates, in Appendix II, page 260, you would see listed there all of the outstanding debts owed by the Province and the rates of interest which we are now paying. For argument sake, Madam Speaker, right now payable in Canadian dollars, looking on the first line, we have $100 million outstanding at the rate of 13.5 per cent and another $100 million at 11 per cent.

Madam Speaker, we all know that when you go to the bank the amount of money that you are allowed to borrow, or the bank is prepared to give you, and the interest rates in which they are prepared to loan it to you, depends upon your financial situation. The more fiscally secure you are, of course, the banks are much more liable to give you the money at a lower rate of interest than someone who is in a less stable financial position.

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that what any prudent government would do, would be to borrow monies at a low interest rate to pay off the debt which they currently have at a higher rate of interest; thereby, Madam Speaker, allowing the Province, perhaps next year, instead of having to pay $569 million a year in interest, maybe that can come down to $560 million. Maybe it can come down to $550 million. I do not know what the number is. Madam Speaker, the only point that I would make on Bill 7 is: Why are we only trying to borrow $200 million at a time when our credit rating is at the best it has ever been, when the rates at which we can charge and borrow money is less than it has ever been?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Member for St. John’s South would like to stand up and give my speech, or perhaps he would like to listen, or perhaps he would like to sit down and pay attention and maybe he might learn something.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Madam Speaker, all that I have been hearing from the other side for the last number of days is that all we are going to do is borrow money to go out and spend it. Nowhere in Bill 7 does it say anything about expenditures. It talks about borrowing funds to be able to retire debt. My contention, looking at the bill and looking at the Budget Estimates, my only question that I would have to ask is: Why are the government and the Minister of Finance only going to borrow $200 million at a time when the interest rates they can borrow money at is far lower than at any time in our recent history.

Madam Speaker, I would make a recommendation to the Minister of Finance to up the amount of money that we should borrow so we can pay down more of our debt at the high interest rates and thereby save some additional money in interest payments in future years to be able to spend more money on health care and other worthwhile public services.

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to mention that, to say a few words about the loan bill, because it seems to be an issue that the Opposition members seem to have seized upon. It is a topic which they are trying to make some political hay over, and a lot of the things which I have been hearing from the other side - to be kind, it is not quite the interpretation that the bill really deserves. One could say that they are saying things which the bill does not intend to say, but that would be implying that they are breaking one of our commandments and I prefer not to say that. So, on the whole issue of what we are hearing from the other side these days, we are hearing a lot of, I will call it, gobbledygook. Some would call it politics, and it might very well be politics. It is just not my politics. It may be their politics but it is not mine.

Madam Speaker, there are a few other things I would like to speak to on this particular Budget Speech. We will just talk about Voisey’s Bay because we have heard a lot about Voisey’s Bay in the last little while. All that the Opposition like to talk about is how much ore, or in their most recent ad, how much nickel - they seem to change that on TV from night to night, whichever is the flavour of the month.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: No, no, people can be my judge. They can listen to NTV the same as I can listen to NTV. That is fine.

Madam Speaker, what the members of the other side fail to forget, they fail to forget the significant achievement that we are trying to achieve in the Voisey’s Bay negotiations is not a mine and a mill. We already have mines and mills for other minerals in this Province. We have the iron ore mine in Labrador West. We have done that, and we have taken our concentrate and we have shipped it off down to Sept-Iles, or wherever it is going to be, to go into a smelter. We have our oil on the offshore going aboard tankers going into Whiffin Head momentarily before being transshipped somewhere else in the world, no value added really in this Province. We, for years, got lots of fish. We put it into cod blocks and sent it down to the Boston states and they repackaged it and made a few dollars on that.

The big thing, in my view, Madam Speaker, about the whole Voisey’s Bay discussions and negotiations, deals simply with the fact that we are, for the first time in our mineral industry in this Province, establishing or attempting to establish, or making it a precondition, Madam Speaker, that we have a smelter. A smelter, people will argue, should be pyromet, it should be hydromet. Madam Speaker, I do not really care if they chew it up and spit it out as long as it comes out nickel, to be quite frank and honest with you. We are getting value added.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Madam Speaker, that is something that we have not had for a long - well, I do not think we have ever had it in Newfoundland before. Now, if you ask me my preference, my preference would by hydromet because hydromet, as I understand it, is the leading edge of technology. Just the same as I would not go out today and buy a 286 or a 386 computer, I would go out and look for a Pentium II, obviously. I am looking for the top of the line, the most recent technology.

Madam Speaker, while I can say I do not really care which way we smelt it, the fact of the matter is, we would like to have the most recent technology because the most recent technology will have the longest lifespan.

Now, we are told - and again, Madam Speaker, I can only go by what I am told and what I read in the newspapers - I am told that the Voisey’s Bay deposit as we know it today has a lifespan somewhere in the order of thirty years. So, from the day we start mining nickel ore in Labrador, in thirty years we will close it up and we will go away.

A smelter, on the other hand, has a lifespan minimum of fifty years, maybe sixty, seventy, seventy-five or 100 years, depending upon where they have been in the world and the amount of refits and so on and so forth. So, Madam Speaker, the question I would have to ask is: If a company such as Inco, which is a world-class type of company, is prepared to come into Newfoundland and spend $1 billion or $2 billion in constructing a smelter - maybe in Argentia, maybe in wherever, but let’s say Argentia, that is their preferred location right now - are they going to come in and spend $1 billion or $1.5 billion or $2 billion and then, thirty years from now, walk away and leave the smelter standing there, idle, because all of the ore that we had in Labrador is gone? Of course not, Madam Speaker. What the company is going to do, quite simply, and what they are planning to do, is that long after the Voisey’s Bay nickel deposit has been mined, that smelter will continue to live.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: It will continue to employ 300 or 400 or 500 jobs, whatever the number is. I have heard numbers as high as 600 and I have heard them as low as 400; whichever it might be, let’s say 500. So we have 500 jobs, well-paying, in a smelter doing secondary processing in Argentia for the next fifty to seventy-five years. Madam Speaker, the question now comes: Where are they going to get the concentrate to feed the plant in Argentia?

Madam Speaker, my preference would be that the company and other juniors would do an extensive exploration on the Labrador Peninsula and find additional deposits because we cannot assume that the Voisey’s Bay nickel find is a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. There must be other nickel deposits up there. My first preference, Madam Speaker, would be that they would do an accelerated exploration type of program and they would come up and prove new resources of nickel ore on the Labrador Peninsula itself.

Failing that, Madam Speaker, if they want to bring the ore in from Timbuktu, I do not really care where they bring it in from as long as the smelter in Argentia continues to operate well beyond -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: My colleague from Twillingate & Fogo tells me that the smelter will be the most efficient and cost-effective smelter they will have anywhere within their industry. That does not come as a surprise to me because, if you are going to spend $1.5 billion to $2 billion to build a smelter, it is going to be state-of-the-art. It is going to be the most efficient type of production unit you can find.

Madam Speaker, then we come down to the question of, perhaps, why are they in Argentia? Why aren’t they in Labrador? I have absolutely nothing against Inco wanting to establish anywhere within the Province. As a matter of fact, if they were to say they wanted to set up their smelter in Hopedale, Labrador, my hat is off to them to do that.

Madam Speaker, the company has made a decision. They have made a decision to establish at Argentia. Why Argentia? Think about it for a second. Argentia, as we all know -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MERCER: By leave, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: No leave granted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is great to have the opportunity to make a few comments on the Budget. I have listened intently as several members on both sides of the House have spoken, not only today but certainly over the past couple of weeks. The Member for Ferryland has spoken for a record length of time and I listened intently to each and every word he said. I have to say, it was a great learning experience, to learn and have some insight into the Budget. I have learned much from the Member for Ferryland and I am sure that all Members of the House of Assembly learned much from the Member for Ferryland if they cared to listen. On the days they listened, they certainly learned much from the Member for Ferryland. Every time the Member for Ferryland gets on his feet and speaks about financial issues in this Province, it is a learning experience for the rest of us here in the House, and it is certainly interesting.

When we talk about the Budget and we have the members opposite - we just had the Member for Humber East on his feet pointing out some of the great and positive things the government has done. I am not going to stand here tonight and say that everything the government has brought forward over the past number of years is negative. That is not the case, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: That is not the case, but the fact is that everything they have brought forward of a positive nature has come from the 1999 Blue Book.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: That is the problem. They are guided by deals and new things to generate the financial ability in this Province. Now, they stand on their feet time and time again and say to the leader of our party: What is your idea for this? What is your policy on this? What is your policy on that?

Madam Speaker, we have to be careful that we do not allow all of our policies to go out because, by the time the next election rolls around, you will have all of those new policies that we are formulating now and you will have them here before the House of Assembly to bring into law. That is what we have to be careful of, because we intend to put a new vision to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with a new policy document.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: We have travelled around the Province and we have talked to people in this Province through our different policy committees. We have travelled around and we have listened to the people who have come forward with the different polices. We intend to put that policy booklet together and we intend to lay it before the people of this Province when the Premier gets around - when he gets the guts to go to the people of this Province with an election, when he gets the time to call an election, we will be ready. As the leader said a few weeks ago in Grand Falls, Madam Speaker, we will be ready. We have heard time and time again members opposite talk about their policy, and we have the opportunity to put forward out policies, and we intend to do so in time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments, if I could. I am going to touch on a few different issues that I am sure are no stranger to anybody here. We hear members opposite talk about the wonderful job they are doing of governing this Province. Then, I get a phone call a couple of weeks ago from a parent in my district who tells me that her daughter is home selling bingo cards to pay for copy paper to finish out the last two months of school. I put that right up there with wonderful! I am home selling bingo cards to pay for copy paper and to pay for cartridges for the computer for the last few months of school. That is the wonderful Province that we are living in, and the wonderful job this government is doing for the people of this Province, when we have school children out selling bingo cards to raise money for copy paper. That is the record, that is part of the record, of this government. Then they are telling you that they are doing such a wonderful job.

Madam Speaker, I had a telephone call on Saturday night at my home from a gentleman who was out enjoying the long May 24 weekend. Himself and his wife were back in the country in a cabin. His wife took sick and he ended up bringing her out of the country and taking her into a hospital here in St. John’s. The gentleman called me - he is getting up in years, and his wife is getting up in years - and said that they were at the hospital for a little over five hours before they got to see a doctor. A little over five hours waiting to see a doctor. That is another part of the wonderful Province that we live in, the wonderful job that the members opposite say they are doing, when you have to wait five hours to see a doctor. This gentleman called me, and he was very, very concerned about the health care situation in the Province. Certainly, that is only one story of many, many stories that we hear. The Member for St. John’s West and the Member for Trinity North have been on their feet here many times bringing these concerns forward, and certainly these are concerns that we have too.

Madam Speaker, we talked about the roads in the district. Several members on this side of the House, including myself, over the past number of weeks that we have been here, have been bringing petitions to the House, Madam Speaker. We have many, many concerns with roads in this Province, Madam Speaker. We have a concern because we understand - we understand on this side of the House - that there needs to be federal input into a roads program in this Province. We understand that fully because, when the PC government was in Ottawa, if memory serves me correctly, we had an agreement called the Trunk Roads Agreement. We had an agreement, Madam Speaker, Roads for Rail Agreement. These agreements were signed under the PC Government in Ottawa, and even this year the present Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is still spending John Crosbie’s money when it comes to doing roads in this Province. He is still spending money from the Roads for Rail Agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I would say to the Minister of Fisheries, calm down. You have plenty of time tonight to get up on your feet. Calm down.

I am just saying that we need a federal-provincial agreement. Then we get the minister going off to Ottawa with a power point presentation, looking for $1 billion. A power point presentation, how silly. How silly do they think we are, to think they are going to sign over $1 billion? We are not talking, Madam Speaker, a $20 bill; we are talking $1 billion project that we are looking for, for a federal-provincial agreement, and we get the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation going off to Ottawa with a power point presentation. We have the Member for Labrador, the MP for Labrador, Mr. Lawrence O’Brien, saying that it was a trivial presentation, that he had a better presentation put forward from children in Pinsent Arm in Labrador in relation to roads improvement.

We need a federal-provincial agreement. I have roads throughout my district that need work. I could use $15 million or $20 million in my own district to do roads. We have a $24 million or $25 million provincial roads program this year. I realize the constraints of the government, but we need to have a federal-provincial agreement and we are not going to get it with a power point presentation. We need to have a detailed presentation made to the minister in Ottawa.

Throughout my district, I go to communities right down through St. Mary’s Bay, from St. Shotts, Peter’s River, right up to St. Catherine’s in St. Mary’s Bay, and there is much road work needed. Out through St. Mary’s Bay, just outside the town of North Harbour, down through the Town of Mount Carmel, we need road improvements. Out on the Cape Shore, across Branch country, Route 100, down to Point Lance road, Route 100-16, we need road improvements. In over the Cape Shore road into the Town of Placentia - I was in Placentia on Saturday - the road through Ferndale, up around the Jerseyside hill, all need major road improvements done, and down in the community, down to Fox Harbour access road, down to Ship Harbour. I was very pleased to hear that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation took the time to visit my district a couple of weekends ago and promised the people of Ship Harbour some money for their road. I have sent several letters of correspondence to the minister to ensure that the road in Ship Harbour and other roads in my district be done. We have brought it up here through debate and through petitions in the House, and these are only some of the concerns we have.

Mr. Speaker, another issue that is of big importance to the people I represent is the RRRAP program. I have several people in my district who have contacted me in relation to the RRRAP program and I find that a lot of these people are senior citizens living in homes that are very old and need work done. They put in their names, and now my understanding is that the department is looking at applications from the summer of 1998. Here we are heading into the summer of 2002 and they are looking at applications from the summer of 1998, another major concern that we have, as I am sure most members here have, in relation to people contacting them in relation to RRRAP.

RRRAP is an important program, a very positive program, and one I felt was geared towards seniors. I remember back years ago when then minister, Art Reid, announced that program and he said it was geared towards seniors. Certainly the RRRAP program has left a lot of seniors doubting what can be done for their homes, when we are looking at a program now that is addressing the concerns and the applications that were put forward in the summer of 1998.

That is a federal-provincial agreement, and it certainly has done great work in the Province over the years, but it needs to be looked at and it needs to maybe be complemented with more funding if necessary because people out there - I mean, if they see a need with their homes now, if they have a leaky roof or they have a chimney split open, or whatever the case may be, the fact is that they need that work done now, not in 2006 or 2007. They need that work done now. Hopefully, the minister can look at that and certainly take to heart the concerns that were raised on the RRRAP program.

Mr. Speaker, certainly an issue that has come up here in the House over the past number of weeks, and one that interests me because of the district I represent, is the Voisey’s Bay issue. I would be remiss if I stood on my feet in Budget Debate and did not talk about the effects the Voisey’s Bay development will have on the people in my district. We have raised it here, and we have heard all the rumours that all members have heard. We understand that there is only a handful of people at the negotiating table, and that the whole world does not know what is going on, on a day-to-day basis. What we have asked here, and not only what we have asked here but indeed the people of the Province are asking, is that before that deal is signed, sealed and delivered, and the people here are signed on forever, that the Premier bring the deal in its totality here to the House of Assembly for a full and thorough debate, and discussion and a vote.

Now, we heard last week from the Premier that the deal would come back here to the House of Assembly. We heard last week there was going to be a vote taken. We heard last week, Mr. Speaker, that it was going to be laid on the Table here in the House; but, we also heard that is going to be done after the deal is signed. I certainly have a concern with that because I want to know what the long-term benefits are for the people I represent. I want to know what the long-term benefits are for the people of Placentia & St. Mary’s, and not only for the people of Placentia & St. Mary’s but indeed the people of the Province. I believe that the only way we can do that and give a proper and fair hearing to the Voisey’s Bay development is to bring it here to the House of Assembly, lay it on the Table, so that all members here can have an opportunity to have a look at it and make sure that what we are signing onto is for the long-term benefit of the people we represent, and not for a choice few.

MR. REID: That’s what we are doing.

MR. MANNING: It is not what you are doing, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. You are bringing it here after it is signed. That is not what the people of this Province want. They want a deal - after it is signed. You are bringing it here after it is signed. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker, you are bringing it here after it is signed. That is like closing the stable door when the horse has gone down the road. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, it is like closing the stable door when the horse has gone down the road. It is too late then to go look for the horse.

I am saying, bring it here to the House of Assembly for a full and thorough debate before it is signed. I understand the anxiety of the Minister of Fisheries. I understand fully the anxiety of the Minister of Fisheries, as I understand the anxiety of other people on that side of the House, that the people in their districts want to know what is in the deal before it is signed. They are not going to have a choice, Mr. Speaker. I understand the anxiety of the Minister of Fisheries. I understand why he is so uptight because I am sure the people in Twillingate & Fogo would like to see what is in the deal before it is signed. They are not going to know before it is signed, not according to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: You should talk to your Premier if you think that. You should talk to the Premier of the Province if you think that.

We had the Minister of Human Resources and Employment on Niteline last week saying that he agrees it should be debated here before it is signed, but he has not opened his mouth since. He got off on a sidetrack that night because it certainly was not the case. We heard that, and we were glad to hear that from the minister because we thought that was the direction government was taking. Now I am very concerned for the people I represent and I want to make sure that it is a good deal. I want to make sure that it is a good deal for years and years and years; not for a couple of years, Mr. Speaker. I want make sure that the deal is a good, solid deal for the people I represent, that will benefit them for years and years to come, not something that is going to benefit a few people for a couple of years. That is why I believe it should be brought back to the House of Assembly for a full debate and a thorough discussion before it is signed.

I heard the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island on the radio all weekend. He is confused. The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is confused. He is confused because he thinks that we are confused on this side. He thinks we are confused on this side about the issue of Voisey’s Bay. I heard him myself. I have to say to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, I am confused about him. In 1999 he ran under the banner of Brian Tobin and he agreed with everything he said. If he said black, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island said black. If he said white, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island said white. Whatever Premier Brian Tobin said, the member went along with it. He agreed with everything that Brian Tobin said, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. He agreed with everything. He ran in 1999 as a candidate under Brian Tobin, therefore he must have agreed with what he was doing. He ran as a candidate in that election under the then Premier Brian Tobin, and he agreed with everything that was going on.

Last February, Mr. Speaker, when the time came for a leadership on the other side - and Paul Dicks was the former Minister of Mines and Energy, who agreed 100 per cent with what Premier Brian Tobin had said in relation to ore leaving the Province. What did the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island do? He jumped on the bandwagon. It wasn’t a very big bandwagon, mind you, Mr. Speaker, because there were only two of them on it; but he jumped on the bandwagon and supported Paul Dicks to the hilt. Then, on the second ballot after Mr. Dicks got dropped off the first ballot, what did the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island do? He said that he is in with Mr. Efford, who is now the new MP for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, and Mr. Efford says: no ore is to leave Labrador; and he supported him.

Mr. Speaker, if he is confused, I am really confused about where his stand is. I am really confused about the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, if that is his stand. Then he looks over and says: Give it to her, give it to her, keep asking the questions, keep her going here, keep rattling them, keep going, keep the pressure on about Voisey’s Bay. We have been doing out part. I say to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, you have us confused on this side. Hopefully, before the night is out, you will get an opportunity to stand on your feet and to clear the air on the confusion you have caused us on this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no one confused over here.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation he is very confused, because on Saturday past myself and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation attended a function together. The Speaker was at that function. We were at a function on Saturday and the Member for Works, Services and Transportation finally found out what a power point presentation was. At the reception, the function we attended on Saturday, they introduced a power point presentation. The minister was sitting down next to me and he said I am finally going to find out what a power point presentation is. I said it is about time. We have been trying to tell you now for four weeks what it is but you will not believe us. Lawrence O’Brien, the MP for Labrador, tried to tell him what it was and he did not understand what it was from him. Therefore, I was very pleased to have the opportunity to sit down and point out to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation what a power point presentation was.

It is very important that the minister understand that he needs a comprehensive, detailed plan to take to Ottawa for a federal-provincial roads agreement. I certainly welcome today that he puts that plan to Ottawa so we can get some much needed work done in the District of Placentia & St. Mary’s and other districts throughout the Province that need road work done. It is great to hear that the minister is now working on that plan and we certainly look forward to putting that forward.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, it is important with Voisey’s Bay that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the opportunity to see what the plan is; not after it is signed, not after we do not get a chance to make amendments if they are needed, not if we do not get a chance to question or to say to the Premier: maybe, Mr. Premier, that is a mistake if you do that. Maybe - to the Minister of Mines and Energy - that is a mistake. Aren’t we all here in the House of Assembly to do the best that we can for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Aren’t we all here in the House of Assembly to make sure that the decisions that are made in this hon. Chamber are decisions that will have a positive influence on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? That is my role as a legislative member, to make sure that decisions I make, the comments I put forward, that if I put any motion forward to the Table here that they are done in a positive sense to make sure that the people of Placentia & St. Mary’s benefit from the decisions that are made here. I am here to represent the people of Placentia & St. Mary’s, that is my first and only priority. I have to ensure that the long-term benefits from things like Voisey’s Bay and any other major policy decision that is made in this House is made for the benefit of all those people in the long term.

It is important that we keep the Premier - we were here last year when the Minister of Mines and Energy said that our former Premier, Mr. Tulk, said that it would be debated here in the House before it is signed. Then the very next day the Premier said that it would not be. I say we should go back to what the former Premier said, and we should be given an opportunity here in the House - I should be given the opportunity here in the House, as the Member for Placentia & St. Mary’s, to ask questions about the Voisey’s Bay agreement, to put forward any improvements that we can to make sure that the deal is of long term benefit -

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The member’s time is up.

MR. MANNING: - to the people whom I represent in Placentia & St. Mary’s, and to ensure that it is an opportunity here in the House to flush out -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. MANNING: It is an opportunity to make sure that we get it fully debated (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member has been denied leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the Budget from a district perspective. I think most of us are taking a very broad perspective here. In my own district, for example, Gander District -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS KELLY: I think the big picture, as the Member for Ferryland says, is very important, but when you realize that the budget is $4 billion, it is very important to realize the impact that it has on people in this Province on an individual basis, on a community-by-community basis, a person-by-person, family-by-family basis. We need to realize that in that $4 billion there are expenditures that make a great difference in the lives of the citizens of this Province.

In my district, for example, we are spending $69 million on the redevelopment of James Paton Memorial Hospital. This redevelopment, according to the budget projections here says, will complete the construction of a new wing for operating rooms, an intensive care unit, an emergency and outpatients department, at the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander, and it will continue redevelopment of existing in-patient laboratories and x-ray units. I am told that the redevelopment, the new wing, will be completed by late August of this year. The staff will be moving in, and we will then redevelop the present-day hospital. So over the next few years we will have a state-of-the-art regional facility.

Of course, in the budget also, some very important announcements from the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. In my district, of course, in Gander district there is almost $9 million going into Gander; $8 million for a new water treatment plant. We all know that this is a huge priority of this government, to develop safe, quality drinking water. Also, there will be about $1 million over the next three years for road work. I understand from the municipal council that we will be doing some work on Elizabeth Drive, one of the main streets in Gander.

In Appleton and Glenwood; I know in Appleton paving is a big priority and we will soon be doing some announcements around paving for the upcoming year in that area. Of course for the people of both Appleton and Glenwood, sewer treatment is extremely important. There are two old sewer treatment plants that are over thirty years old, and we know just how important it is to have proper sewerage treatment. Now we have been doing a fair amount of study and we hope that this year it will cumulate in an announcement that will be made on how we can solve the sewer problem so that we will not be emptying raw sewage into the mighty Gander River. We know over the last few years we have put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the old treatment plants to get them to last a few more years until a decision could be made on how to solve the sewer problem.

I noticed this past weekend when at home in my district, that Cooper Boulevard, the extension to Cooper Boulevard, is moving straight ahead. The road is getting completed and we hope that it will be paved by the end of this summer. There was $300,000 in this years’ budget for the paving of Cooper Boulevard once the construction of the road is completed.

There were small things in the budget, small but important things. An extra public health inspector, and also a half-time position right now is being made into a full-time position for a water quality specialist so that this person who has been working half-time will now have a full-time job in this very important position.

Transition houses; in my role as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I was so pleased that the Department of Health and Community Services were able to put money aside, funds for security and training in all of our transition houses. So of course, Cara House in Gander will benefit from this extra funding.

Just a few weeks ago we announced some funds from the Community Economic Development Program for the eKubator project that the Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation are proceeding with this year. This will be the second year of this program and it will help small businesses all over our region to come on-line, to be able to service, market and sell on line all around the world. We already have, I think, nine businesses who are on-line and we will be able to extend this now to a lot more small businesses all around the region. This has been so important, for instance, to small outfitters who do not have large marketing budgets, to go to all of the big shows all around North America and into Europe. Now, they will be able to sell on-line.

Already the businesses who went on-line last year, as a part of this program, are being very successful in marketing their products and services to the world. Of course while all of this is very good news, there are still challenges. One of the challenges was addressed here and debated last Wednesday on Private Member’s Day when we talked about the need for an MRI. We know that in Central Newfoundland - both Central East and Central West - they are working with the western region and have a proposal put together to put in place a mobile MRI; a very expensive piece of equipment. The operation of it, of course, is even more expensive, but it is necessary. We know the study that was done by the Department of Health and Community Services show that we need three MRIs in this Province. I think that by working together - the Western, Central East, and Central West Hospital Boards have shown that by working together we can provide very valuable health services to the people of our Province.

A very immediate concern that we have in my area right now is the need for a renal dialysis program. I know that we are expecting, within a week or so, that the provincial renal dialysis committee report will be made available to the Minister of Health and Community Services. I look forward to that report because right now the dialysis unit that serves Central Newfoundland in the Grand Falls hospital is completely full. It is so full that residents from Central Newfoundland are having to move to St. John’s so they can get renal dialysis. We expect that this report will show where, how, when, the costs, all of the details on what needs to be done in the area of renal dialysis in this Province. I am looking forward to that report because almost weekly now I am getting calls from families who have loved ones who need this service. We have presented, actually, thousands of signatures from the whole region that outline the need for this service in our area. We know that people who live in the far outreaches of the district, it is just too far for them to have to travel to Grand Falls. The Grand Falls unit is full and it is time now to be looking at where these services are needed all over our Province.

Of course last year, outside of these two major health challenges, we have also had some very good work done in the past few years in developing our tourism product, for instance, in Central Newfoundland, both in my own area and what we call out around the loop in the Kittiwake region. I know there are tourists already in the Twillingate area looking at icebergs. I know last year our tourism product was greatly increased when the back nine of our golf course in Gander was completed. Now, already this year, I am seeing golf packages being offered by the hotels in our area; very good packages too, I might add. The course is up and operating eighteen holes this year and moving forward to really adding a lot to the economy of Gander, especially to our retail sector, our hotels and our restaurants.

We also continue to work on aerospace, the military. There are so many opportunities that we are researching, and we will be bringing new ideas forward; and, of course, our airport continues to be very, very important. Last year, in the further development of our aerospace and airport industries, government moved government air services to Gander in a very successful operation. I know that it is now operating and running smoothly, and it has added a lot to the aviation town. I know that people are very appreciative of this and we know that every little bit, along with CHC Composites, government air services, all of that, adds to developing a very important aerospace industry.

So, Mr .Speaker, there are very good things happening in our Province, and I know that in listening to the previous speaker, when he was speaking about Voisey’s Bay - and, of course, there will be a huge impact on his district, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary’s. When he talked about - you know, I think he was misleading his constituents. He talked about how the deal would be signed. The deal will have to be, at least initially, signed in principle. How else are you going to be able to negotiate such a huge deal as the Inco deal? It will be signed but it will not be ratified until it comes before this House. It will be an agreement in principle until it is ratified in this House. So, I think it is time for the Member for Placentia & St. Mary’s to be responsible.

He talked, for instance, about wanting to use $15 million to $20 million for roads in his district. You know, all of us have huge needs like this in this Province, but the members of the Opposition keep criticizing the Budget. They have been doing it for weeks now. The Member for Ferryland was up for days. He was up for weeks criticizing, but every time he spoke he talked about it. Do they want to raise taxes, the members opposite? No, they do not want to raise taxes. Do they want to cut programs? No, they do not want to cut programs. Do they want to borrow more? No, they do not want to borrow more. All they want to do is criticize. I see no sense of responsibility whatsoever on the opposite side of the House.

You know, a $4 billion budget, it is still hard to balance it, but we have to be responsible. We have to be accountable. We have to look to the future and we have to provide good services for the people of our Province.

In my own department this year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS KELLY: No.

- I would like to say that in the budget what we have been doing for young people in bringing tuition levels down yet another 10 per cent. They are now amongst the very lowest in Canada. They are the lowest in Atlantic Canada. You can go to Memorial for two terms now for $2,600.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: These are important things for the young people of this Province. The new student aid financial package that we brought in just several months ago is very important to the people of this Province, and especially to our young people. We have put in place our new Youth Advisory Committee. This has been a very important year for this new department. We have put in place the new Student Investment and Opportunity Corporation which is helping young people get jobs. We are putting jobs together with work experience so that, when our young people graduate from college or from university, or get their certificates or diplomas, they will have the work experience to also go with their educational qualifications.

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that in that $4 billion budget we look at and spend this money wisely. I think, on this side of the House, we are accepting the challenges. We know that it is difficult and we know that we have a big job ahead of us, but we are up to the challenge. On a district-by-district basis we are proving that we can improve the quality of life for people in this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say, it is indeed a pleasure for me to stand in my first Budget debate. Unfortunately, there is not a lot left to be said. My colleagues have done such a wonderful, wonderful job of dealing with all the problems in this Budget. As much as it took my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, three weeks on his feet -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: - a fabulous, fabulous job! It is a good thing he is there to help out the Minister of Finance, because otherwise she would not know what she was doing, if he was not there to tell her and to ask her questions. A fantastic job! My compliments to you, Sir.

What I would like to talk about today, Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I could, is the fact that there really should not even be a budget. There should not be a budget at all. In fact, the budget should be a Tory budget. That is what it should be.

Honourable members opposite, this government and this Premier, have no mandate from the people whatsoever. They have never gone before the people. After the Premier was elected as Premier by 600-odd Liberals - no pun intended - by a majority of seven or eight, possibly, the Premier stepped into the chair. No other Premier in the history of this Province who was put in office in that manner has waited so long to go to an election. Never! As a result, there should never be a budget.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, with great reluctance I rise to interject in the debate, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just started to speak, but he has propositioned already, in his comments, that there should not be, in fact, a Liberal budget, or a budget presented by the Liberal government, before this House at this time because we have no mandate.

The suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you to take it under advisement, is that we are, in some way or form, or in some fashion, in government, sitting on this side of the House illegally; that we are not here by legal means and methods.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we are governing, on this side of the House, because, on February 9, 1999, we were elected for up to a five-year period to perform, to provide, to give governance to this Province. Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you for your consideration that the proposition that is being put forward, that we should not be here, that we are here in some form or fashion illegally, or in some fashion that is untoward, is fundamentally flawed, false, inaccurate and incorrect. We are here because the people elected us for a period of five years to sit over here and to give governance to the Province.

The hon. member knows that in British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Newfoundland, in all of these provinces, over the last two years there has been a change in leadership but there has been no change in government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this Province should understand that we are governing legally with a mandate that has been given to us by the people of this Province, and we will continue to do so (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Could I remind certain members of the House that the Speaker is in the Chair?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in the last several weeks I have seen the Minister of Mines and Energy use points of order as a way to interrupt and give his own speech. I want to remind him, and others who may do this, that under the rules of the House it is clear what points of order are supposed to be used for. It says, "Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of the legislative business and may be raised virtually any time by a Member, whether that member has previously spoken or not."

My point is this: Points of order by this member are being abused, and they are being abused consistently. He will have his opportunity in Budget debate. If he wants to take some instruction, listen to the Leader of the Opposition and then stand up and learn, to see what you have to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Briefly to the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, the hon. leader, who is the king of Erskine May, the king of Maingot, in terms of rising in this House and waving the green book on which he bases all his propositions, nobody has risen on more points of order than that member.

I say to the hon. member, when I believe that the position of this government is being inaccurately reflected in this House by any member who speaks on that side, I will rise on a point of order because the truth needs to be told; and the truth, if not told accurately, needs to be corrected. Those who speak it need to be reminded of why it is to be corrected and what the real circumstance is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, where was I, Mr. Speaker? I got ninety seconds in. If the truth of the matter was known, I think he is just trying to eat up my time before the hockey games starts. If the truth of the matter was known even further, if he bought cheaper travel tickets and airline tickets, there wouldn’t even be a deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: That is the truth of the matter, if he flew around the world a little cheaper than he has been flying around, at $25,000 a ticket. Anyway, I will not get into that.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, to a point of personal privilege, I would ask that the people on the other side of the House who speak to issues with respect to the expenditure of any type of funds on this side of the House, by any minister, quote factually and accurately or otherwise avoid making commentary that is anything other than that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of privilege.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that, in fact, they have no mandate from the people, and, in fact, if an election was called they would not win an election and therefore there would not be a Liberal budget from this government. There would be a Tory budget. That is my point, exactly my point. They have no mandate from the people. They are following their own agenda. The Premier of this Province is following his own agenda.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He has no authority from the people of this Province. If he does not trust the people to -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to remind the hon. member that in 1999 I ran in the District of Bellevue and the people in that district elected me by an 1,800 vote majority. If that is not a mandate, I would like for him to describe what is a mandate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My point is that, if the Premier and this government do not trust the people to decide whether they should be there, then they do not deserve the people’s trust. They just do not. They are afraid to go. They are afraid to call an election and decide, and let the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation see if he will get his 1,800 majority the next time. I suggest to the minister it will be just the direct opposite when it happens, but this government is not prepared to go. They are not prepared to have an election.

What happened in the by-election when the former Premier, Beaton Tulk, went out and tested his popularity? The problem was, he was tied to the current Premier and to this government. We know what happened to him, don’t we? He lost that by-election. It had not been lost for thirty years. Do you know why he lost? He paid a price for this government, for this government’s budget and its fiscal mismanagement. That is what happened to Beaton Tulk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: A former Premier of the Province, the Premier before him, flew the coop and headed off to Ottawa. We have to sit here day after day and listen to the Minister of Finance talk about voodoo economics and the sky is falling. Yes, the sky is falling because Chicken Little flew the coop and he got nailed in a by-election!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Poor Beaton. I pity him. A long service to this Province and he pays a price because he is associated with you people. That is sad. That is really sad.

John Efford, on the other hand, who disassociated himself with this hon. crowd on the other side of the House - what happened to John Efford? John Efford won by an 18,000 majority. He got his vote out. He got his vote out, didn’t he? But, Beaton did not get his vote out. Do you know why he did not get his vote out? Because they all stayed home. They associated him with Premier Grimes and his government. That is why he got defeated. They sent a huge message to this government, this provincial government. The people of the Province have spoken. That is why I ask for an election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about mandate, we talk about Voisey’s Bay. What better example of a mandate, when I talk about a Premier who is following his own agenda. His own agenda, for some reason, is to get Voisey’s Bay done, and, I would suggest, to get Voisey’s Bay done at all costs. The puppet Minister of Mines and Energy, he just tags along. The strings get pulled, and he jumps and dances when the Premier says hop. The problem with the puppet minister is that he is going to have to live with it for the rest of his life because, when a bad deal is done in this Province, people are going to remember Premier Roger Grimes and Minister of Mines and Energy, Lloyd Matthews. That is who they are going to remember.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Need I remind hon. members that when reference is made to any hon. member of this House, it should be done referencing the position that the hon. member holds or by the name of his district.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s talk about the mandate that this government has to proceed with Voisey’s Bay, the mandate that they have. The first Premier, Premier number one, said: Not an ounce, not a spoonful, of ore was going to leave this Province. What does this government do? It plays games with the word ore. Now they are talking about ore and they are talking about concentrate and they are talking about anything. The point is that it includes nickel. As I said before -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible). The minister said, she we will do what is in our Blue Book.

MR. WILLIAMS: She said what?

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister (inaudible) will do what’s in your Blue Book.

MR. WILLIAMS: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that whether it is orange juice or whether it is concentrated orange juice, it is still orange juice. There is still nickel in it. The Premier should not play games with the people of this Province and try and confuse them with words like ore and concentrate. At the end of the day, it is nickel leaving the Province.

The other thing in the Red Book is that it said not an ounce of ore, or ore would not leave this Province, or ore leaving this Province, or concentrate leaving this Province, would not be acceptable. It simply would not be acceptable to that government. That was their mandate. That was what they ran on. That was their platform. That is what put to the people of this Province, and the people voted them in on that basis and they have to live by that mandate.

The Premier, as well, Premier Tobin, Premier number one, said: If we get a mine and a mill now, and we build the smelter later, then later will never come. He said, a smelter would never come. And, do you know something? He is going to be right. The smelter will never come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, then we hear what is coming from the other side. We hear what is coming from the officials of Inco. Peter Jones, the Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of Inco, two months ago, back in March, said: Obviously, we want to ship concentrate for as long as possible.

So, the goal of the Chairman of Inco is to ship ore out of this Province for as long as he can. That is his goal. Now, as a representative of Inco, I respect him for that. He has a job to do. He is doing the best thing for the shareholders of his company. It is our job and the Premier’s job and the minister’s job to do the best thing for the shareholders of this Province, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in an unusual fashion to say congratulations to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He describes our mandate and what we are attempting to do very, very accurately, and that is to ensure that we get the best possible deal for the people of this Province, the shareholders on whose behalf we work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Congratulations, Sir. Congratulations. You’ve got it right and you have stated it well. We will hold ourselves accountable (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The real torpedo in the bow of this government’s scam and sham was when Scott Hand came out and said that they were going to keep the smelters in Sudbury and in Thompson productive and competitive for a long, long time. That was it. That was the fatal blow, because then the jig was up. Then the people of Newfoundland and Labrador finally found out what the real deal was; and the real deal was that our ore, our concentrate, our nickel, our whatever, was going to leave this Province and keep Sudbury and Thompson going for a long period of time. To add, Mr. Speaker, 300 new jobs are going to be created in Sudbury this year. To add to that, Mr. Speaker, the Mayor of Thompson, Manitoba, is breaking champagne and the people are dancing in the streets because they are going to have our jobs. That is simply wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: What about us, Mr. Speaker? What about Newfoundland and Labrador? What about the jobs here, Mr. Speaker? That is what we need to concentrate on, not 300 jobs in Sudbury, not 1,000 jobs in Thompson.

Let’s go through out-migration, Mr. Speaker. Let’s talk about what has happened in our communities in the last five years when 40,000 people have left our Province. Let’s look at the percentages over the last five years. In Portugal Cove South, 21.4 per cent of the people have left. In St. Shotts, 31 per cent of the people have left. In Aquaforte, 22.7 per cent of the people have left. In Peter’s River, St. Vincent’s, St. Stephens, 24.3 per cent of the people have left our Province. In Gaskiers, 21.5 per cent.

I am going to continue on, Mr. Speaker. I know it is difficult for hon. members opposite, but we are going to go through some of this list. In Sunnyside, 23.2 per cent of the people have left. In Heart’s Desire, 25.3 per cent. In Cupids, 13 per cent. In Ricketts,13 per cent. In Lawn,18.6 per cent. In Lamaline, 21.4 per cent. In Fox Cove, Bay L’Argent, Grand Le Pierre: 14 per cent, 15 per cent and 10 per cent. In Rushoon, 18 per cent of the people have left our Province. In Gaultois, 24.1 per cent in the last five years have left Newfoundland and Labrador. In Milltown, 21.4 per cent. In Morrisville, 22 percent. In Ramea, 30 per cent of the people, one third of the people of Ramea, have had to leave our Province and this government is going to send jobs to Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba. Shame on all of you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

In Cape St. George, 15.4 per cent. In Lourdes, 14.2 per cent. In Port au Port West, Aguathuna, 15.2 per cent. In Jackson’s Arm, 10.6 per cent. In Howley, 19.3 per cent. In Hampden, 16.4 per cent. In Norris Arm, 16.3 per cent. In Little Catalina, 16.2 per cent. In Elliston, Catalina and Bonavista, 21.9 per cent, 13 per cent and 11 per cent have left in those communities. In Traytown, 18.3 per cent have left. In Happy Adventure, 14 per cent. In St. Brendan’s, 21.8 per cent. In Melrose, 13.7 per cent. In Carmanville, 12.6 per cent. In Fogo, 18.2 per cent. In Change Islands, 21.7 per cent. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will continue. In Summerford, Twillingate and Campbellton, 11.2 per cent, 11.6 per cent and 12 per cent have left these three communities.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of references in the authorities, of an hon. member reading a speech. The hon. member is reading from a document. I do not know how much longer he continues to go, but I would suggest to Your Honor that the hon. gentleman should be brought to order. Members here do not need to be read to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The member has risen on a point of order that is not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is quoting the actual statistics from communities where people have left. Those are your numbers, I say to the government, not our numbers. The Leader of the Opposition is within his rights to quote any and all documents right here. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader is doing, the point is this: Why is it that government is so obstructionist? This is the fifth point of order in less than twenty minutes to the Leader of the Opposition. These are your numbers. He is allowed to do it. There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, I just want to say that on occasions in this House the members have been using notes in speeches. The use of copious notes has been accepted in the House and there is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is, we have had to sit here for two sessions of this House of Assembly and see the former Minister of Rural Development, and current minister, get up and talk about how wonderful everything is in this Province. How great thou art. How wonderful everything is in this Province. Jobs are being created everywhere. The GDP is going through the roof. Everything is wonderful.

Well, these are the cold hard facts. I can understand why he wants to object, because he does not want to listen to them, but maybe the people of the Province want to get the facts for a change and they are going to get them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: In Little Burnt Bay, 24.3 per cent. In Point Leamington, 12.5 per cent. In Little Bay Islands, 27.9 per cent. In Beachside, 27.2 per cent. In Tilt Cove, 23.1 per cent. In La Scie, 15.2 per cent. In Seal Cove, White Bay, one out of four, 25.5 per cent have left their community in the last five years. In Coachman’s Cove, 30.8 per cent. In Westport, 24.5 per cent. In Englee, 16.1 per cent. In Conche, 23.8 per cent. In Daniel’s Harbour, Cow Head and Parson’s Pond, 18.6 per cent, 23.2 per cent and 19.4 per cent. In Bird Cove, Bide Arm and Main Brook, three of probably the most beautiful communities in the entire Province, 17.7 per cent, 23.4 per cent and 15.8 per cent of the people in those communities have had to leave their beautiful homes and their beautiful communities to go find jobs elsewhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: We will do two more: Sally’s Cove, 30.2 per cent. Again, one out of three, Mr. Speaker, and Bellburns, nearly the same, 29.9 per cent.

I have probably named one-tenth of the communities, at maximum, on that list. People are leaving in droves, 40,000 people, equivalent to turning off the lights in Mount Pearl and the lights in Corner Brook and calling her quits in those two communities. That is how relative it is. That is how big it is. That is how significant it is, and that is the level of mismanagement of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: So, Mr. Speaker, when I talk about jobs, when our party talks about jobs, when the Opposition talks about the creation of jobs in this Province and the importance of Voisey’s Bay, that is why it is important. That is why it is so important. Three-hundred jobs in any of those communities, or near any of those communities, or sprinkled through those communities, would be a tremendous boost to their economies. That is why it is so important, and that is just this year in Sudbury alone.

What is going on in Thompson, Manitoba? Why is the Mayor of Thompson, Manitoba, so happy? Why has their been a major rock cut, and a road widening and an upgrading going from Manitoulin Island into Sudbury? To carry our ore from the deep freshwater ports from ore carriers into the smelter in Sudbury. That is insulting, Mr. Speaker. We did not even know in this House. We have asked questions. Day after day, night after night, asking, asking, asking and getting no answer from this Premier, no answer from this government, and no answers from this Minister of Mines and Energy. All they do is dance around, avoid the questions, and deliberately deny the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the information that they so rightfully deserve on the Voisey’s Bay project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, if, in the event, the unlikely event, that I missed a question at some point over the last two or three weeks and there has been a question that he has not gotten an answer to, I would ask him to table that question. Because, to my knowledge, I have answered every question that he has put to me in this House with respect to the Voisey’s Bay file. If I have missed a question, or if an answer has been incomplete so as to be unacceptable, I would ask him to table the question and I will provide the answer. Better than that, if he wants to ask the question and give me leave, I will answer the question now for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question just last week and quoted the hon. member verbatim, the full sentence of what he said at the Resource Estimates Committee. I asked a specific question, some answer was given, and what happens? The Premier of this Province goes outside, in those corridors outside there, and calls me a liar when I quoted verbatim, exactly, word for word, what was said in those Estimates Committee. That is the kind of nonsense that is going on.

Mr. Speaker, as well, we asked to have witnesses brought before the Committee of this House of Assembly, the Resource Estimates Committee. A perfectly reasonable procedural move. This minister, the Minister of Mines and Energy, stood up today, when the House Leader asked a specific question, and said: Ask Inco officials. I cannot answer that. Ask the officials of Inco.

We asked to have them brought before this Legislature, to be brought before this House. What happened? We were denied it. They voted us down. A majority of the members of that committee voted us down. I say, Mr. Speaker, that each one of the hon. members opposite has to answer to each one of their constituents where they are at the end of the day on the Voisey’s Bay deal. They have to stand up and be counted. They cannot hide behind the shield or the umbrella of a government that is just going to go in and do it and tell them what to do; because, the people in their districts are going to ask them where they stand on ore leaving this Province. I can tell you where they stand. Two-thirds to three-quarters of them do not want ore to leave this Province, and that is why we do not want the ore to leave this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: We will stand up and we will fight for them, and we will try and protect them every step of the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why we want a debate in the House of Assembly. We want this matter brought before this House of Assembly so that we can deal with the issues. We want it brought before this House of Assembly before it is signed, sealed, and delivered; before it is final and binding; before the deal is done; before it is over. We want to have an opportunity to have it brought before this House so that we can discuss it. Mr. Speaker, our position throughout has been: We want to help. We may be able to provide some constructive help to make it a better deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Don’t underestimate it, Mr. Speaker. Don’t underestimate it. We think we can help. We have some very competent people on this side of the House and combined with the brains on the other side of the House, God knows what kind of a deal we can come up with.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy does not even realize is that every time we stand on our feet and ask for something, something stronger, something more important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we strengthen his hands. He is able to go back to Inco and say: I can’t accept those terms you are trying to impose on me because they will not let me do it. So, he is able to go back to the negotiating table and get a better deal for the people. He should realize that, and I am sure he knows it. That is the truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker. So, we are here to help.

We are going to try and make sure that there is a better deal, but we cannot have the nonsense that went on in the House last week with the Premier. He was all over the place. He summoned the press into this House of Assembly. He brought them in to do a big announcement. Everybody thought a deal was done. What was the announcement? He was going to have a debate after the deal was signed; after it was all over; after the horse was out of the barn. Then he changed his mind again. It was going to be a tentative agreement; then there was going to be an agreement in principle; then there was going to be a statement of principles. No wonder people are confused, because he is confused. That is why they are confused. He does not know where he is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear. Two very simple tenets to our position: No ore from Voisey’s Bay leaves this Province because when it goes, according to this government, according to their most recent position, is that: well, it is going to go out until at least 2011. Okay, so that is nine years from now. That is at least 2011. When is it going to come back? Fair question, and I think it is right to ask. When is that ore going to come back? Thirty, thirty-five years. As a matter of fact, when Roger Grimes - I am sorry, when the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I realize that.

When the Premier of the Province -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that factual information be - and I am enjoying listening to the hon. member. I say, Mr. Speaker, I am enjoying listening to the hon. member. The hon. member just said when he was speaking: that we are contemplating letting ore go out of the Province, as he put it, from 2002 to 2011. He said: that’s nine years. We have never ever specified any amount of time. What we have said, Mr. Speaker, is that if there was a deal done today it is going to be 2005-2006, or thereabouts, before any ore is ready to go anywhere, including into Argentia. So I say, Mr. Speaker, the proposition that nine years of export is something that we are contemplating is factually incorrect, and I would ask the hon. member to take note of that and make the correction in terms of his (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: (Inaudible) who has been watching the ad campaign that our party has been putting on. There is a quote there from the Premier, this is the Premier’s quote: Replacement ore will not be shipped back to Newfoundland and Labrador for processing for thirty to thirty-five years. To make matters worse, here is what else he said, this is even more disconcerting: We don’t know where that replacement ore will come from.

MR. E. BYRNE: Neither does Lloyd.

MR. WILLIAMS: Neither does the Minister of Mines and Energy, and it would be ridiculous to ask. So we are not even allowed to ask Inco where it is going to come back from. We do not even think it is going to come back for thirty-five years, and it might never come back. His attitude is: Well, who cares anyway because I will not be around. I will probably be long gone.

Well that is not the attitude of this party, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I think it is important, seeing as how this is an hon. House where we try to present the facts and the statements. At no point in time did the Premier of this Province state that he did not care because he would not be around. That is another part of misleading information about what our Premier said, about what this leader over here is trying to portray. It is nonsense what he is saying, and he is wasting time. I ask him to respect this hon. House in telling the facts instead of misconceiving people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Number seven point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: Number seven. I am sure we will get them all on their feet before I am finished, before the night is over.

The other thing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should think about as well is that Premier Tobin is against the current position of this particular government because he said: Not an ounce, not a spoonful. Minister Dicks, who was Minister of Justice, I think, just before he left, was totally, totally against this position; absolutely, unequivocally against this position.

MR. SULLIVAN: He was Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. WILLIAMS: He was Minister of Mines and Energy for a period of time, but I think he was Minister of Justice just before he left.

He was totally against this position. In the leadership campaign against the current Premier he made his position very, very clear. MP Efford, the new MP for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, who was also in that same leadership race and narrowly lost to the current Premier, his position was also very clear. His position was that he was against ore leaving the Province. They also did not agree with what was going on with this government and that is why they left this government after the Premier was elected as the leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to ask themselves: Why have these people left? Why are so many hon. members opposite here, hon. members in the Opposition, taking the position that they are taking? Why are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador so adamant that they do not want ore to leave the Province? The reason is quite simple, they know it will never ever, ever, ever come back. The other thing they know is that our ore, our concentrate, our nickel is going to be used to create jobs for Manitobans and Ontarians, and as I have said before, God love Manitobans and God love Ontarians. We have nothing against our fellow Canadians but we want our jobs and we need them a lot more than they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that is the issue of mandate, the question of a mandate to even have a budget because if they had gone through an election they know what the outcome would have been, so therefore there would not have been a budget. Then there is the question of mandate on Voisey’s Bay, and I have just dealt with that in some detail.

Now we have to concern ourselves with the Budget itself, and I have to say - the Minister of Finance is singing Happy Birthday. I am just getting into something really serious and important here, minister. You might want to just listen to this. I know you have learned a lot from the Finance critic, Mr. Sullivan, over the last three weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I must say I have been personally shocked by the Auditor General’s report in the last two years.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I do want to apologize for interrupting the Leader of the Opposition but Fabian Manning shouted across the House that it was his birthday, the Member for Placentia -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind hon. members about any time they make reference to a member of this House they ought to do it by the constituency that he represents or by the position that he holds in the House.

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they may try and slow me down but they will not stop me tonight; they will not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, again to get back to a serious matter. Since I have been in this House and since I have been honoured to be the Member for Humber West, I have to say, I was shocked by the Auditor General’s report. It is one thing, out of everything that has happened in this House, that has completely shocked me because from my background and my experience auditors are important. They are very important. They give you the true, accurate picture of what your financial situation is.

I remember when I saw that first Auditor General’s report - and I went over it, I must say, with the Member for Cape St. Francis - and I just could not believe some of the statements that were in it, some of the atrocities that the Auditor General was pointing out, and this year is no different. She has said, this year, that she is concerned over the lack of information; that there is very, very little information. As a matter of fact, she has also said that the situation with the deficit is actually misleading. That is not my term, that is her term. She said that the deficit position - people should know that it is misleading to tell people we have a $30 million deficit because it is really $350 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, as I indicated yesterday, I would never indicate that hon. members opposite are intentionally misleading the people of this Province, never.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important in terms of factual information again, there was never, ever any intent to do anything but state the facts. The deficit for the year was stated when we read the budget. We tabled in the House of Assembly, for all the people of the Province, the actual deficit. There is nothing hidden, as the Leader of the Opposition would try to imply, that everything was either read in the Budget Speech, accounted for by the Auditor General or tabled by the Public Accounts Committee in this very House of Assembly for the people of the Province to see, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Number nine.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Auditor General said - and I will just read it again in case the people have forgotten because that is the ninth interruption I have had and I am losing track of just where I am. People should know - these are the words of the Auditor General, Elizabeth Marshall - that it is misleading to tell people that we have a $30 million deficit because it’s really $350 million.

As I was about to say, I would not suggest that hon. members opposite are intentionally misleading this Legislature or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think there is any intention whatsoever because I do not think she knows the difference. I do not think she is able to tell whether she is misleading or not. I think that is the problem.

As well, the Auditor General said this government, the Minister of Finance’s government, the Minister of Finance’s department is the least accountable. The government is the least accountable in the country. That is what appeared in the national newspapers.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that the Auditor General said that this government has some of the best financial statements in the country. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we were presented at a quality assurance for leading the country in accountability and in how we keep our financial records. He won’t say that, Mr. Speaker, so I have to say it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: As well, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said: this year I am again expressing my concern with the manner in which this government is calculating its surplus or deficit. It is exactly what she said, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to take a section from a summary of the Report of the Auditor General which deals with an assistance program. I will just read some of the comments, some of the concerns that she pointed out in just this one particular area. One page out of her consolidated report, "Weaknesses were identified with respect to project controls... The database maintained by the Department is incomplete... Our review identified irregularities with respect to approved projects for one applicant." So we have an incomplete database, we have irregularities identified, and we have weaknesses on project control.

A review of projects approved indicated, "...inadequate application form review and assessment; inadequate quotations obtained in support of proposed expenditures, including serious concerns expressed by the Department relating to authenticity of quotations.... inadequate site visits completed by the Department - they did not even go out and look at it properly - inadequate reporting.... inadequate project evaluations completed by the Department; lack of inspection or audit of the applicant’s records; and inadequate support for claimed expenditures." Gross incompetence is what that reflects. That is exactly what it reflects.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: If any auditor gave that kind of a report and made those kinds of comments to any company worth its salt they would be very, very seriously concerned about the state of what they were doing with their finances.

There is one company that would not be concerned though. There is one company, that is Enron. They would not be concerned about it because that is what was going on in that company. Do you know what happened to that company? It is imploding. It is imploding because the accounting is in a mess. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is going on with this government and that is why there is mismanagement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: She went on to state that budget or financial planning information focuses on an incomplete picture. That means that this government is running on an incomplete picture.

Here is what the Attorney General wants: She wants strategic and operational planning processes; she wants, clearly, to find objectives; she wants measurement criteria; she wants financial budgets and reporting systems. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Our government, when we form it, will give her everything she asks for!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I think it is also important to note for the people of the Province that we have an accountability framework in place that we have been working with with the Auditor General. She knows about the whole component as it relates to reporting accountability, all of the mechanisms that are in place. The member opposite knows that the criticism that she did was about the fact that there was no legislation. It was not about the fact we did not have the tools and instruments in place to do the accountability, and that is an important fact to make, Mr. Speaker - true figures.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador forms the government, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will know what an open and accessible and accountable and transparent government (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: That will be right after the next general election, and that is a policy which we have already announced, and we are out on the record on it.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue that the Auditor General talked about, about misleading, the number that was given by this government for the deficit was $30 million and that is what the Auditor General had concerns about. People should know that it is misleading to tell people we have a $30 million deficit because it is really $350 million. This year, our deficit is $63.5 million. If that is the case, when the real numbers come out, that deficit is probably going to be around $400 million. So, the number that we are being told will be around $63 million, when the real number is $400 million.

Now, can you imagine if you went to the shareholders of the company and said: Look, I think we are going to lose $1 million and we lost $10 million? Or, I think we are going to lose $10 million and we lose $100 million? It just would not be acceptable to the shareholders of any company and it is not acceptable to the shareholders of this Province, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the projected deficit for this year is $93 million. At least it was. Now, we knew last year that the deficit was around $30 million or $35 million. That is what we were told by the minister. However, upon a request from the Finance critic, the Member for Ferryland, in September, an update was given and that was changed again. Now we have a $93 million figure. We now know from expenditures that have been made recently that it is now over $100 million. I would suggest that, if that is the number that the Minister of Finance is telling us it is, you can probably multiply that by at least five. So, the real deficit is probably half a billion dollars. In the last five years, this government has borrowed $1.5 billion. But, if you look at the deficit numbers and you add it all up, you would think there was only $100 million or $200 million.

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

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member if he would be good enough to explain to us why he believes, according to the rationale that he would use, why he believes that the Province’s finances should be in the shape that he says they are in and yet, for the first time in thirty-five years, Moody’s, the largest rating agency in North America, has upgraded our credit? Can he explain to us why (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will explain to the Minister of Mines of Energy what Moody’s said, and I will tell him what Moody’s said. Moody’s says that this Province, our Province, faces more difficult budget circumstances and is relying, to a great extent, on non-recurring measures - non-recurring measures like the raid on the Labrador Transportation Fund; we will talk about those now in a minute - to enhance its short-term financial flexibility. Short-term gain for long-term pain for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Moody’s also said that the use of such measures is unsustainable, which means they cannot keep it up. They cannot keep it going. Something has to drop out of the sky to bail them out. That is the way this Province is being managed financially.

One more thing they said: Newfoundland’s credit position remains among the most least robust of the Canadian provinces.

So, in answer to interruption number twelve, that is what Moody’s had to say, Minister. You’re welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. I ask the hon. member now to get to his point of order quickly.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member if that is all that Moody’s said when they gave us the upgrade? Is that the full extent of their commentary that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: The only thing moody around here is the hon. minister and all the rest of the hon. ministers over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He is in a bad, bad moody tonight because he is missing the hockey game. That is what is wrong with him.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on but I am very cognizant of the time. So, based on what we are seeing here, based on what the Auditor General has said, based on the fact that the Auditor General has said that, in fact, the numbers are misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and based on the fact of the massive out-migration that is going on in our Province, and based on the fact that 40,000-odd people have left our Province in the last five years and the same number or a greater number is probably going to leave our Province in the next five years, and based on the fact that financial institutions, like Moody’s, say that what we are doing is unsustainable, and based on the fact, Mr. Speaker, that Voisey’s Bay is going to be sold out by this government, the one current chance that we might have to do something sustainable is going to be given away and jobs are going to be created in Sudbury and in Thompson - that is what is going to happen - based on that, that is why this evening, as Leader of the Opposition, I am moving a motion of non-confidence in this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the motion that is before this hon. House is to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government - that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The only word we agree with is "that", Mr. Speaker. The amendment, Mr. Speaker, is that - and we agree with the government on those four letters, that, "...this House condemn the government for its failure to accurately represent the true state of the economy of the province and the government’s consequential failure to take appropriate budgetary action to deal with the real problem."

That is the motion, Mr. Speaker. I call on the Member for Baie Verte to second that motion.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: Seconded by the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that I have my second wind, Mr. Speaker, I am going to see if I can’t speak for a little while longer on the amendment itself. I am inspired by the Member for Ferryland. I have unlimited time. The hon. Government House Leader knows what unlimited time means. Eternity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hockey game.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don’t like missing the hockey game any more than hon. members opposite, but these are very, very serious matters that we are talking about here this evening.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to deal with the raid, the "Highway Robbery" as it was referred to by the MP for Labrador, Lawrence O’Brien. That is the raid, the theft, the robbery, of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. It is the most shameful act that I have seen, and I have seen a lot of them while I have been in this House, but this is the most shameful act that I have seen this government do, and that was to take that money that was placed in a sacred trust for the people of Labrador. What I am so disappointed in are the members for Labrador who have not stood up and been counted on this particular issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: I am sorry. Forgive me, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the Leader of the Opposition that I was asked and I took a lot time to come to an agreement of where the money would be spent. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if you saw the problems and the young people who we have lost in my riding, I am sure you would have come to the same consensus as I did and put that road through, which this government is going to do. I say that you should be ashamed to come into the House of Assembly and use these tactics against us! Make no wonder that your party is the only party that does not have an elected member in the House of Assembly - and the way you are going on, you never will!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my apology to the Member for Labrador West, because he stood up and he was counted. He stood up on behalf of the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Let me make it clearly understood that, that is not an apology to the hon. member opposite who just stood up. What I am going to remind the hon. member of, is what the Member of Parliament for Labrador said, a distinguished and hon. gentleman, the Member of Parliament for Labrador, Lawrence O’Brien. Here is what he said, and he stands up and he fights for the rights of Labradorians every single day he goes to that Parliament. Here is what he said. He described the actions of the Grimes government as "...beneath despicable and disgraceful."

Despicable - a strong word - despicable and disgraceful. That is what he said those actions were. He said there was a sacred vow to the people of Labrador and those promises have been broken. I say to the hon. member opposite, that is why he cannot rely on the promise of the Grimes government, because those promises get broken by that government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand on a point of order this evening because I have sat in this House for days and listened to the Leader of the Opposition, tonight again, stand on his feet and leave the impression that this government is doing nothing for Labrador. Well, Mr. Speaker, this government is doing plenty for Labrador. We have been investing money into roads, into schools, into communities, but what I have never heard the Leader of the Opposition stand in this House and say, Mr. Speaker, is what his party, his policies are for Labrador. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? There are none. The only word ever uttered for Labrador is a tunnel across the Strait of Belle Isle, never another issue, never another position, Mr. Speaker, only the foolishness that he continues to raise day after day.

I will tell you, when the member opposite is ready to stand and tell the people of Labrador what his position is on the policies and the issues that affect them, we will be here to listen; but the member consistently says that we do not stand up for the people of Labrador. We have been standing in our place for seven years in this House for the people of Labrador, and they know it. They have seen the benefits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

From what the Chair could hear of what was being said, there is no point of order.

I would appreciate if members on both sides of the House would keep their voices down when members are speaking, please.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would appreciate it, too, because I can hardly hear my own ears.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair that the policy of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador is that we would, under no circumstances, ever, ever raid the Labrador Transportation Fund, absolutely not!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: You can take that to the bank.

I want to make it very clear to the hon. member opposite, as well, that these are not my words. These are the words of the Member of Parliament for Labrador, Lawrence O’Brien. The other word that he used was: shameful. He said, "...that their promises mean nothing, commitments mean nothing, and that they can’t be trusted with a blank cheque." What a statement. What a reflection on this government. They cannot be trusted with a blank cheque.

They wonder why we move a non-confidence motion, when a Member of Parliament who is representing the interests of Labradorians says their promises mean nothing, their commitments meaning nothing. Well, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can then decide what their promises will mean on Voisey’s Bay or what their promises on anything else mean, or what their commitments mean. They mean zero. They mean nothing, according to Lawrence O’Brien.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He also said that they fumbled the ball very badly on this file. In reference to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he was embarrassed. The Member for Parliament was embarrassed by the presentation that was made in Ottawa for an $800 million to $1 billion funding program for the roads in our Province. It was a power point presentation, a Mickey Mouse presentation. Those words, Mr. Speaker, are mine. "Mickey Mouse" are my words. Amateurish and unprofessional, not formal and professional, are the words of the Member of Parliament for Labrador. He was ashamed by the way they presented the case of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say something to the Leader of the Opposition. I was sent here by the people of the Lake Melville district to represent them, and for him to stand there and tell me that I do not represent the people, that only the Member of Parliament represents the people of Labrador or the Member from Labrador West, I think, is a sham.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to what presentation we made to Collenette in Ottawa, the Member of Parliament was not even there, so how could he know what we were doing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in the nine years I have been in this Legislature I have never seen what I have seen here before. In an hour and ten minutes, members on - it may be foolish, sir, but in the last hour government has interrupted on points of order on sixteen different occasions, all designed to try to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition. Every point of order, Mr. Speaker, that has been raised by members opposite, you sir, have ruled that there was no point of order.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, I ask you in your capacity as the sole arbiter of this House, to remind hon. members that the flagrant abuse of points of order, which is obviously designed only to impede and an attempt to disrupt the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you, in your capacity, to remind these members that such behaviour is not becoming in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. Opposition House Leader that I have been in this House a little bit longer than he has. I can tell him that I have not heard a speech by a Leader of the Opposition that has been so insulting to members in all my life. I have never heard it. I have never heard it, Mr. Speaker; so insulting.

I would remind hon. members that it is unparliamentary to suggest to hon. members that they are not performing their duties. It is the most insulting, the most provocative language that I have ever heard given by a Leader of the Opposition. That is why the points of order; that is why the interference; that is why the interruptions. If this Leader of the Opposition can give a speech that follows the proprieties of this House then nobody will be standing up, Mr. Speaker, and interrupting.

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

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

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

What is it now? That every speech any member, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, has to send it over to the Government House Leader to have it vetted first? Is that what he is saying?

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that what has happened here tonight, there have been sixteen points of order raised by government members and ministers and not one of them was a point of order.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader talks about a speech being provocative or unparliamentary. Not one word or phrase in the Leader of the Opposition’s speech tonight has been ruled unparliamentary. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that government and its ministers have, in a premeditated way, designed to impede and interrupt the Leader of the Opposition; are flagrantly abusing the rules of the House and flagrantly abusing points of order just to interrupt what he has to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Obviously, there is no point of order, but the Chair would recognize that in this House, on many occasions, members on both sides have used a point of order to raise various points. I have to remind all members that until the Chair hears what the point is, it is very difficult to rule on a point of order. I would ask all members of the House, however, to please give each other the courtesy of being heard.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Government House Leader that when he says that I have insulted hon. members opposite I must remind him of the words that I have insulted them with, because they are not my words. They are words of former Premier Brian Tobin. They are words of Scott Hand of Inco. They are the words of Peter Jones of Inco. They are the words of the Mayor of Thompson, Manitoba. They are the words of the Auditor General of this Province. They are the words of the distinguished people at Moody’s. They are the words - and I will continue - of the hon. Member of Parliament, Lawrence O’Brien, the Member for Labrador. Those are the words.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue.

MP O’Brien said that this government, the Provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Grimes government, has broken the trust of the federal government. Broken their trust. What a huge, huge statement. In other words, the federal government, the Government of Canada, cannot trust the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. No wonder we are not getting anywhere. No wonder we are not getting any concessions. They do not trust us. What could be worse? So the trust has been broken. That is why we will not make any headway because we have broken the trust of the people of Labrador and we have broken the trust of the Canadian government.

Another quote: They need to get their financial act together. What stronger words for a motion of non-confidence: they need to get their financial act together. He also said that the day the trust was broken was a black armband day for the people of this Province.

Here is something which is quite alarming, and it is the second time that I have heard this. I heard it again last week in reference to the actions of this government. The Member of Parliament said that their actions were nothing short of fraudulent. It is a pretty serious word. The Member of Parliament for Labrador said that their acts were nothing short of fraudulent.

The Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay described their actions as a crime. So now we have breach of trust, broken promises, fraudulent actions, and a reference to criminal actions. The Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay indicated that. He also says we have a credibility problem with Ottawa. In other words, as a result of the breach of trust we have a credibility problem with Ottawa.

The MP for Labrador said: I am surprised at our MHAs in Labrador - of course that would exclude the Member for Labrador West - I am extremely surprised. I expected them to defend this fund and they have not done it. Very, very strong words. A damning condemnation of this government.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that these are the one-time measures, these are the one-time hits that this government is trying to use to stay above water but they are doing it on the backs of the people of Labrador and the backs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by damning their reputation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: As well, another one-time hit, and it is another unsustainable measure, the Finance critic talked about: raiding Hydro, taking funds from Hydro. We cannot keep that up forever, Mr. Speaker. We weaken Hydro. Hydro should be our strongest corporation. Hydro is the corporation around which we should be building our energy plan but we are weakening it, we are softening it up, we are taking money from it, we are forcing it to go for rate increase applications. As a result, its credit rating will go down. So by doing that, we are also damaging the fiscal and financial future of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may move on to GDP - and I will not deal with this at any great length because it was handled very capably by the Opposition House Leader during Question Period. Bobby Kennedy said before his assassination, "...GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile." No truer statement was ever said. We have had it shoved down our throats for the last four years.

When Premier Tobin was here, he heralded the GDP. It was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The GDP is going up, leading the nation, our worries are over; highest GDP again this year. Don’t worry about it Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as long as that GDP is going up we have no problems. It is a meaningless number. It is smoke and mirrors. All it does is mislead the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Ask the people in Gaskiers what the GDP means to them. Ask the people in Ramea what GDP means to them. Ask the people in La Scie or Rushoon what an increased GDP means to them. It means absolutely nothing. Ask the 40,000 people who have left Newfoundland and Labrador what GDP means to them. It is absolutely meaningless.

Our disposable incomes have not risen in thirteen years while this Liberal government has been in power and we have the highest child poverty rate in the country. A shameful, shameful statistic, Mr. Speaker. We sat here, and I watched them. I watched the Minister for - is it Rural Development?

AN HON. MEMBER: Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. WILLIAMS: - Industry, Trade and Rural Development. He would get up day after day in debate and in Question Period and talk about the GDP and how our employment rates were going up and our unemployment was coming down, and day after day he kept repeating how good it was in this Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: A couple of trouble spots, he said; just a couple of trouble spots.

MR. WILLIAMS: There were a couple of trouble spots. Well, I named a few of those trouble spots tonight. I did not name the other 90 per cent. I only had time to name 10 per cent.

There is trouble all over this Province, and he would stand up day after day and say everything was rosy, everything was wonderful. Well, the people at home in their living rooms who are unemployed, some of whom are alone - some of the people that I saw when we campaigned on the Northern Peninsula, and I saw wives home alone when their husbands had gone, when their mature children had left, and they were home in their homes alone. They would only see their spouse maybe once a year. Ask them how they feel this Province is doing. They do not feel very good about it. It is not a very good situation.

Rural Newfoundland is in decline and we have to do something about it. It is a very serious situation. That is why that minister has paid a price, because the people watched him. They listened to him but the problem is he could not deliver because they knew he was part of the Grimes government. He was a part of the government opposite, and they were not delivering to the people. The people of this Province will not be fooled by that kind of talk. They know the reality. They can watch it on television, as they are watching it tonight. They can listen, they can see, they can hear, but they do not even have to watch it on television. They just have to sit in their living rooms and look at the reality of what is going on in this Province. It is not good out there. The problem with this government is they have no long-term plan for anything. It is band-aid solutions everywhere; a band-aid here, a quick fix here. A short-term gain and long-term pain for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that is what is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, they waste. I alluded to it earlier, but the waste, the exorbitant travel and entertainment expenses - and I am not going to go through a list because it is not my intention here to embarrass anybody, but people read about it. People see it. People find it shameful. Eighty-five hundred dollars on meals for a minister who is no longer here. Shameful! People out there who do not have bread to put on their tables wonder how this extravagance can go on. How people can talk about deficits and cutbacks and needy times when, in fact, they are flying all over the world, eating the best kind of food, all kinds of exorbitant travel expenses. That is shameful! That is irresponsible for a government to do that, and it should not happen. That is part of the reason we have the deficit we have because there is an attitude problem in that government.

Mr. Speaker, we will just have a quick chat about some of the stolen policies of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, and hon. members opposite have spun out that we do not stand for any policies. Well, they know we stand for a lot of policies. They know basically what they have taken from us, but I will go through a very quick list: the establishing of a child advocate. A point I made just recently, a stolen Tory policy. They formed the Freedom of Information Ac, a stolen Tory policy. Unfortunately, a poorly implemented stolen Tory policy.

The Minister of Environment even indicated today that he was going to make a change in his statues to allow Freedom of Information with regard to his particular department because when we debated in this House and when suggestions were made to make changes, hon. members opposite would not make those changes. That is why I say to hon. members opposite: if you want to take our policies any time, any place, take them. You are welcome to them but implement them properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: To re-establish an Ombudsman. To televise the House of Assembly, another Tory policy. Cut tuition fees, another Tory policy. To establish class-action legislation, another Tory policy. To investigate fishing industry collusion, another Tory policy. To reform the FPI Act, another Tory policy. To place the biodiversity institute in Corner Brook, another Tory policy. We had to actually go out there and speak to Rotary in Corner Brook to shame this government, the following day, into making an announcement that that institute would go in that community, which rightly deserves it.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the policies that hon. members opposite decided to adopt, decided to use. We are delighted that they do because if they get in place now then they will already be in place when we form a government after the next election.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) in the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely, we already mentioned it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we just have to look quickly at the record of this government over the last twelve months. We talked before about breaking the trust and breaking a trust with Ottawa, and we also talked about the promises of the former Premier who left and ran in Bonavista-Trinity Conception. He ran on a mandate that basically equalization would be straightened out, and clawback would be straightened out, and transfers would be straightened out. That was the mandate. What did he deliver? He delivered absolutely nothing.

Premier number three went up to Ottawa and had a chat with the Prime Minister. He came back and said: It is all straightened out. Everything is wonderful. It is going to be changed. The following day, the Prime Minister said: Sorry, nothing is going to be changed.

MR. E. BYRNE: Had to issue a release.

MR. WILLIAMS: They had to issue a release to correct it, to straighten it out. So, he went up, came back and said everything was all right. So, Premier number three could not straighten it out. Premier number two, if he had gotten there, would not have been able to straighten it out either. Do you know why? Because the trust has been broken. Ottawa does not trust us any

more; because, when you raid funds and when you break trust in the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, you break the trust of the federal government. They have had all these meetings, all these fisheries meetings, and Pettigrew -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Leader of the Opposition again talk of Ottawa and the break of trust. Maybe he should realize that the people in the riding of Torngat Mountains - it was the only riding in this Province that was denied the TAGS program, and that is when we went through our most difficult times. Maybe he should talk of breaking the trust where Ottawa has gotten Canada Post - where it costs three times as much to ship stuff by parcel post from Goose Bay to the North Coast of Labrador as it costs to ship it from Goose Bay to British Columbia. Maybe he should rise and ask the MPs in Ottawa where they stand on these issues that the people on the North Coast of Labrador have to face.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The man you ran for at that particular time, Premier number one, was Minister of Fisheries, if I remember correctly.

Mr. Speaker, so that is equalization. That is the track record on equalization and clawbacks, a very, very important matter to the people of this Province. Then we have the FPI fiasco, where Premier number three, the leader of the Province, simply was not interested enough at the time to ask any questions. Now he comes to this House and he is simply not interested enough to answer any questions. A few weeks ago, I asked him questions and he would not even get out of his seat. So, not only does he not want to ask, now he does not want to answer. He does what he wants. He follows his own agenda.

As a result of his failure to get involved, and his failure to heed the recommendations of the Fisheries critic, the Member for the Straits & White Bay North, the message - actually, after the questions by the House Leader at the time - I am sorry, the Leader of the Opposition at that particular point in time, when I was not in this House - they were told very clearly that there was a huge problem with FPI and they let it go. When did they get interested? They finally got interested in December when it became politically expedient to get involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: January.

MR. WILLIAMS: In January when they finally got involved and they went on the road show because that was the political thing to do. But, by that time it was too late. They were warned there was going to be a consolidation of those companies and they allowed it to happen. What they did, at the end of the day, was, they seriously tarnished the business reputation of this Province by doing so. They very, very seriously tarnished that business reputation. That was a gamble. The Premier rolled the dice. He did not ask any questions and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador paid.

Health and Safety: they have lost control of the deficits, but the Hay study is an interesting exercise. They paid $500,000 for the Hay study. What did they do at the end of the day from Hay? They came out with a letter that was written by the new Minister of Health, who had replaced the former Minister of Health. What did he do in his letter? He hung the former Minister of Health out to dry in his response to the Hay Group. He said that the report in question was unfortunate, poorly worded, and should not have been made without direct sources of evidence. He said: We agree that the consultants should have spoken directly with emergency physicians. He said: I apologize if there has been an uncertain perception regarding out strong support for the quality and competency of the physicians and, in particular, if this has caused additional stress.

He apologized, but whose neck did he hang it around? Who did he hang it on? He hung it on the former minister and her department. He said the department should have disassociated itself with the objectionable paragraph at the time when the report was released publicly.

What did he do? He blamed the former minister. If the Minister of Environment today had to get up and blame the former minister, that would be right. He would be accurate because the former Minister of Environment made a mess of tire recycling, but that former Minister of Health did not deserve that comment!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: As an aside, and even more important, on the way through they destroyed the credibility and the reputation of emergency physicians in this Province, people who do an admirable job are very, very competent people who take care of the health and safety of our children in this Province. They let go a damning condemnation on them, and the people in their department were involved. It should never have happened. They are open to lawsuits and they will be sued before it is all over. You mark my words.

Let’s deal with water export. Here is another great mistake of the Grimes government. All through last spring we heard about water export. We heard that bulk water was going to be the saviour. Bulk water was going to be exported from this Province, huge revenues were going to come in, and we were going to balance our budget on the back of bulk water. That is what we heard.

MR. E. BYRNE: Free tuition was what he said, wasn’t it?

MR. WILLIAMS: I believe he did say it. You are quite correct. It would pay for free tuition for our students in this Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: That got watered down after.

MR. WILLIAMS: It did get watered down. It certainly did get watered down. Do you know how it got watered down? Because the leader of this Province, the Premier of this Province, never bothered, never tried to find out, never checked, as to whether it was economically viable. He made the statement; he caused an uproar across the country. The Prime Minister got angry with him again, completely disgusted with him, and what happened? He pulled in his horns because he never checked to see if it was economically viable. What a statement to come from a Premier of a Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: Then he sent out his minister (inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: Then he did not go out and explain it himself. He sent his minster out to explain it. He would not stand up and be counted and take responsibility for what he did, which is typical of this government. Pass it off to health boards, pass it off to school boards, pass it off to Royal Commissions. Do not take any responsibility, do not show any leadership. That is the trademark of this government.

Oil and gas: just recently we have lost Exxon Mobil’s exploration commitment, a huge, huge circumstance. The significance of that is extremely important to the future of this Province. They were here, they were players. They are the biggest players in the world, and they basically walked away from their exploration commitment. We have also, for the short term and possibly for the long term, I have no way of knowing, lost Hebron-Ben Nevis. Another major setback to the oil industry in this Province. On the Laurentian Basin, and I spoke to this, we knew a decision was coming down on the Laurentian Basin, and I commend government for that decision. That was a good decision and I commend government for that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: But they knew that decision was coming down and they have an obligation to prepare the people on the West Coast for that exploration activity because, as you know, the people in St. John’s were preparing for twenty-odd years for exploration on this side of the Province. Over there now, the people in Corner Brook and Stephenville and Port aux Basques are scrambling to try and compete with Cape Breton and Halifax, and this government has been negligent in not preparing them for that exploration activity and not putting them in a position to take advantage of it.

The Lower Churchill, there was the big party. There was the big extravaganza from Premier number one, with big promises it was all going to done. The deal was done. The Lower Churchill was going to be developed. Where are we now? Premier number three, he goes out to dinner. That is where we are now. He is now talking to Alcoa and he is talking to Quebec-Hydro, and when he goes out to dinner with them, before the negotiations or even after negotiations - I think he negotiates, then he goes to dinner, and then he negotiates after. He goes out to dinner with them, and they pay him $10,000 a table to have dinner with them. Now, those are the same people who are going to be negotiating with him tomorrow, or have already negotiated with him. Ten thousand dollars a table to have dinner. That is an improper action. That places the people at that dinner in a compromised position because you should not sit down and accept a cheque from someone who you are in direct negotiations with. That has been the practice. So, that is what the Lower Churchill has come to now. We are going out to dinner, we are taking cheques and we are hoping to develop it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Premier number one said he was going to finish the job on it, didn’t he?

MR. WILLIAMS: He did, but Premier number one did not finish it.

Our record in the Justice Department, we have three wrongful convictions, a very serious matter. I was personally involved in one, not a very nice situation. A young man paid a big price for a wrongful conviction. In questions in this House of Assembly, we asked this government to do a full-blown inquiry into why it happened, and they refused to do an inquiry. We are the worst in the country, on a percentage basis, when it comes to wrongful convictions. So, that is their record in the Justice Department, apart from the fact that we have had all kinds of lawsuits, all kinds of settlements. The Justice Department itself should be investigated. There should be an inquiry into the activities of the Justice Department, not because of wrongdoing but because of negligence in the manner in which they are handling these files.

Mr. Speaker, I guess by way of summing it up, I have probably been on my feet long enough and I am sure that other members would like to have an opportunity to speak before the evening is over. I could talk about Friede Goldman and I could talk about advertising contracts that have been let to friends. I could talk about the hanger contract in Corner Brook. We could talk about the cost of the whole centralization program. We can talk about that for awhile if we wanted to. What did that cost the people of this Province? That was intended to be a very, very cheap move. It probably cost nearly $500,000 a person to move people around this Province because, at the end of the day, there were only simply dozens of people who actually moved. The cost was likely in the range of $25 million to $30 million for that relocation program. A shameful waste of expenditure for this government.

The concept, if it was properly thought through, yes, it would be right; but, it was not thought through. It was a knee-jerk reaction and, as a result, it was wasted away. Then we have the letting of this contract in Gander, Mr. Speaker, which is going to cost the provincial government $10 million for a hanger which was already in existence in St. John’s and constitutes a shameful waste of money.

Mr. Speaker, what this government has failed to do, as I have said before, is put in place a long-term plan. When it comes to health or it comes to education or it comes to rural development, there is no plan. They pay lip service to the plans. They announce them. They say they are being checked out, they are being investigated. They meet with ministers. Letters go off to Ottawa. They are going to do it all, but there are no concrete results.

Here we are with a very rich, wealthy Province, rich in resources, rich in our people, rich in our culture, and what is happening? Our people are leaving, jobs are leaving, and our resources are leaving.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of everything that I have presented here this evening, that is why I have moved a non-confidence motion in this government, and I would suggest to the people of our Province that they similarly should have no confidence in this government and their ability to manage the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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.

I have listened with interest to all of the comments that have been made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and the thought that has been rhetorically occurring in my mind is this: with the description that the hon. member has put forward of this government, it is incredible to believe some of the following facts have occurred.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, in thirty-five years with Moody’s, we have gotten the first upgrade of our credit rating ever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in terms of absolute jobs existing in our economy, we are at the highest level we have ever been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the unemployment rates, they are moving in the right direction. We are at the lowest point they have ever been, particularly in the more prosperous areas of the Province, which unfortunately seems to be concentrated in this area.

What I would like to do in the next two or three minutes is portray to the people of the Province two different and distinct philosophies with respect to the development of this Province. We, as a government, have experienced considerable growth in our economy and a fair degree of success in terms of negotiating with companies who want to come here and do business. I want to refer to, first of all, the White Rose Project.

The hon. member failed to mention tonight that in the last two or three months we have had sanctioned in this Province an offshore oil and gas development that will yield, by far - by twenty or thirty percentage points, as a matter of fact, in terms of the total value of the project - more benefits than any previous contract that we have negotiated on the offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Opposition House Leader did commend us, to some degree, on the successful outcome of the boundaries dispute with Nova Scotia. Let me tell him why we were so successful in the White Rose Project. It is because we understand, on this side of the House, fundamentally, what the meaning of negotiation is all about. On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we understand the principle of negotiating towards a successful and a good outcome of projects for the people of this Province.

We went to the White Rose people, the Husky people, and I can tell the people of the Province, through this House, that when I sat down with them in the first meeting to discuss the White Rose development, I said to the leader of their team: I want you to understand one thing from the outset, we are negotiating for 100 per cent of all of the benefits possible in this project. I said this to them: Whatever we achieve at the outcome of the negotiations we will judge ourselves, and we will be judged by the people of the Province in the context of the extent to which we achieve 100 per cent or something less than that. They understood what we meant. They understood that we were negotiating to obtain the absolute maximum benefits that were reasonable to expect in that project. The outcome was a sanction of a project, which even the people on the other side of the House were somewhat, I believe - even if begrudgingly - happy with the outcome.

We, on this side of the House, understand that people who want to come to this Province need to have an understanding as to what it is we are all about. On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to the principles of negotiating project by project by project to ensure that we get the absolute best outcome for the people of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, does that always result in 100 per cent of everything that is available? I think not. We ended up with the White Rose project getting between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the benefits that were available. We understand what negotiations -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) Hibernia.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) to Hibernia. I say to the hon. Minister of Finance, we got something less than 50 per cent.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We did or they did?

MR. MATTHEWS: We.

I say to the hon. members on the other side, that because we know how to negotiate a good deal, we have the White Rose project. I say to the people on the other side, it is because we know how to put together a winning team with the best possible advice that money can buy, legally and financially and in every other respect, that we have the right outcome on the boundaries dispute. I say to the hon. members on the other side, it is because we knew how to negotiate with companies on the mainland that not one, but two major call centres with1,000 jobs each have located in this Province, in this city in the last two years. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, it is because we knew how to negotiate, that we have call centres in Corner Brook; we have them in Grand Falls; we have them in Gander; we have them in Carbonear, and we have them, I believe, in other locations in the Province as well. We understand the principle of negotiating towards getting the best possible outcome to move our economy forward.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take a lot of time but let me describe the new economic development policy of the people on the other side of the House because clearly, they have a policy. They have a position, Mr. Speaker, with respect to economic development. Their policy is essentially this: We understand what negotiations mean. To us negotiations mean, on the other side of the House, it is come to the Province and do business if you want to invest your money, providing you understand this: that we are totally inflexible; that we are absolutely rigid; that we are completely insular to the concept of fair dealing; that we have a policy on this side of the House. The Opposition stands up and says we have a policy on this side of the House that essentially says: Come and do business with this Province because this is going to be our position when we become government, eventually - if it every happens - it will be our way or it will be the highway. There will be no concept of negotiating anything on any reasonable basis. We have a position that says: Not one spoonful; end of story.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Voisey’s Bay negotiations, I say to the people of the Province, when we cut to the chase, when we cut away all of the periphery and all of the stuff that is around that discussion, there is one fundamental difference between the people on this side of the House and the government that we lead and the people on the other side of the House. It is this: We have said that we will maximize the benefits for the people of the Province or else we will not bring a deal forward. We also have said, however, that we are prepared to sit at a table where we are honestly and fairly and openly and objectively and in good conscience prepared to negotiate, item by item, issues that are contained in the statement of principles in the framework that we have laid out.

The people on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker - this is the fundamental difference with us, it is not about a lot of the things that gets raised on the floor of this House or that gets said in the public. There is a fundamental difference. The difference is this, that the people on the other side of the House have said this: Come here and invest your money as long as you understand that it will be our way or it will be the highway. There is no concept in our minds, in our development philosophy of negotiating anything that is at variance with our preconceived stated position, markers laid down, that is not going to be moved for any good reason or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, on the Voisey’s Bay project, we, as a government, are not political fools. We are not economic idiots. We are not a group of people who have a death wish hanging over us politically nor are we a group of people who have a desire to do anything that will hurt or hold back or retard the growth of or press the people of this Province down. We are not of that mindset. We understand, as I believe a prominent PC said on one of the open line shows last week - I did not hear it but I read the transcript - I think it was Jim Morgan who said that the Liberal government are not suicidal. They are not foolish. They are not out of their minds with respect to the type of deal that they are going to hopefully get done with respect to the Voisey’s Bay negotiations. He said the Liberal government - and he stated correctly - are wise and prudent managers; wise and prudent stewards; wise and prudent negotiators on behalf of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to make it clear tonight, through this House, that we will only bring forward a proposition that we believe, in our heart of hearts, based on the best bureaucratic advice we can get from within our own system, based on the best financial independent advice we can buy, based on the best market analysis advice we can get, based on all of the best propositions that can be put to us, internally and externally, we will only bring forward a proposition that meets two very vital tests in terms of any negotiation. There are two deals that have to be done and have to come together, have to converge with respect to any economic development issue in the policy. We have to do, first of all, a deal that is defensible, that is transparent and objective, and that could be held up to the light of day with respect to critical analysis by anyone who wishes to comment on it. It has to be a deal that will meet the business test. It has to be a deal that will meet the economic test that is in the best interest of the shareholders that we represent, the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there is also another test that has to be met with respect to any negotiation that we do, whether it is Voisey’s Bay or whether it is an offshore oil project or whatever, and that is the political test of acceptability to the people of this Province. We are not of a mind to bring forward a proposition with respect to the development of Voisey’s Bay that we intend or that we expect or that we want to shove down the throats of anybody, whether it is the members of this caucus on this side of the House, whether it is all of the Members of the House of Assembly, or whether it be the people of the Province in general. We are not interested in hoodwinking anybody. We are not interested in being heavy-handed. We do not have the hobnail boots on with respect to our wishes on any particular project. We only have one interest, we only have one concern, we only have one objective, and I say that objective and that concern and that interest is in the best interests of the welfare of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, what we have really is a very clear difference of approach, a very clear difference of philosophy, a very clear difference of going about doing business with those who want to come here and invest their money. I say to the hon. members, they should be careful and understand what some of their positions are doing to the prospects of the growth of our economy.

Madam Speaker, I was at a conference about a week ago and I heard a representative of the mining industry - because it happened to be the mining industry who stood and made this statement publicly in front of the media. They said: we are in a circumstance, with respect to our particular industry, where today if there is an exploration or a development opportunity with respect to the mining sector in this Province, one out of every three investors will not come to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador because of the fear of the poisonous atmosphere that is being put forward with respect to how it is we want to treat those who come in and want to invest money in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, let the hon. Member for Bonavista South know that we will give nothing away, that we will forfeit no ground that we should attain, that we will not negotiate away what it is that we should rightfully have. I can tell the hon. members on the other side of the House that they have a development policy in mind, which they are espousing, that will guarantee this Province, if they were government, forevermore, they would have 100 per cent of nothing on many, many, many projects.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The people of this Province, Madam Speaker, need to understand that a Tory policy and philosophy of development will guarantee virtually that we will get 100 per cent; that we will get more often than not, 100 per cent of absolutely nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, Madam Speaker, I am not sure how proud and how comfortable and how interested the people on the other side are in terms of wanting to stay on - what I refer to sometimes, at least in having a conversation with myself, as Ottawa welfare or grants and handouts - equalization payments from Ottawa. We appreciate equalization. We appreciate what it has done for our economy in our Province for the last fifty-three years, but I am telling the people of this House, Madam Speaker, that the people on this side of the House are interested in sustained development that will progressively grow the economy of this Province so that we can proudly stand on our own two feet, fairly and squarely, meeting our own needs, being able to fund and support our own social programs, being able to move forward the educational system in this Province, being able to - hopefully some day - be a net contributor to the great country of Canada of which we are so happy and so pleased to be proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, I say to the hon. members of this House: If and when we are successful - and I preface my comments by saying if and when. If and when we are successful in negotiating a project for Voisey’s Bay - because I can tell the people of this Province tonight, we are not there yet. There is no deal done. I cannot give any assurance that we will successfully conclude, but I can tell the people of this Province that if, at what point, we come forward with a project, it will be a project that in our judgement as government, those who have been elected with responsibility for moving the economy forward and for negotiating in the best interest of this Province, we will bring forward nothing that in any way, shape or form reflects anything but the absolute, what is in our judgement, the maximum benefits that is achievable in any project to the people of this Province. Madam Speaker, I would say this: That the people of this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The people of this Province may be asked to look at and consider a proposition that gives us 90 per cent or 95 per cent of everything that is obtainable within a deal, or they may be asked to look at, by the people on the other side, a deal that gives us 100 per cent of nothing; a deal that gives us 100 per cent of a resource that remains undeveloped because of intransigent, because of rigidity, because of dogmatism, because of a lack of vision, because of a lack of pragmatism, because of a lack of knowledge and understanding as to what negotiation is all about.

Madam Speaker, I conclude by saying that I fundamentally believe that the people on the other side of the House do understand what negotiation means; they do understand the principle of negotiations; they do understand that it means you have to sit and work through issues one by one. I can conclude only therefore, that the position that they have taken is purely and simply and singularly and utterly rooted in nothing more than pure raw political partisan politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say, Madam Speaker, that the people of this Province expect better from their elected representatives. They expect good government, but they also expect fair representation and they also expect objectivity based on the proposition of a project, based on the proposition of a development in terms of what it will mean to the economy of this Province as opposed to the dividends that it would yield politically. The dividends that we are interested in seeing reaped by the people of the Province, the dividends that we are interested in seeing the people of the Province accrue to them are dividends that will drive their economy and make their standard of living better; not the dividends of politics that is singularly directed toward a grasp for power at any cost and by any means. That is not where we are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I hope, Madam Speaker, that we will be able to some day hold up a proposition that the people of the Province will be able to fairly and objectively consider. Make no mistake and have no doubt that at what point, if it ever occurs, we get a deal for the development of Voisey’s Bay, when we get that done, that we will hold up proudly a proposition that we will let the people of the Province understand and pass their commentary on. We are not interested in pure, raw politics on this so important a resource and this so significant a development. We are interested in the practical outcome of driving and sustaining and moving forward the economy of this Province so that people in Labrador can have work, more work than they have today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: So that the people in the Argentia area can have more work than they have today. They will be able to hold to account their member in Placentia & St. Mary’s as to why, on the one hand the Member for Torngat Mountains is supportive of jobs in his district while the Member for Placentia & St. Mary’s is against new jobs in his district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The people of those two districts, and the people of the Province will understand why it is he has taken the position they have taken if, in fact, we are successful.

I say again, Madam Speaker, to caution and conclude that the issue of the Voisey’s Bay project is a very, very serious negotiation, a very serious issue. I say to the people on the other side of the House that we are not at all interested in doing anything that we do not believe is, by absolute any standard of measurement, right by the people of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The debt? Well, I was about to get into the debt of the Province when I started but I was not intrigued. I was taken a bit by some of the comments the Leader of the Opposition made with respect to what the Voisey’s Bay negotiation might yield in terms of an outcome.

Madam Speaker, I do not know why it is that - probably we should have an objectivity day, I say, in this House. Probably we should have a day when everybody, in some untested method so far, has extracted from their being, their political sense, so that they can speak to issues based on their merits and based on the objectivity that they really have in their hearts. I do not believe the people on the other side are really interested in seeing the Province kept down. So it must be only for political purposes. I believe they want to see the people of the Province prosper and move forward. We understand that in order to do that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I give them the benefit of that doubt. I believe they do have that concern.

I say to the people of the Province, I say to the people on the other side, and I say to the people on this side: Let us be women and men enough, as members of this House, to view every proposition and every possibility for economic development in this Province. Let us be people enough to view them on the basis of merit, on the basis of principle, on the basis of an outcome - that the net outcome will be beneficial to the people of this Province.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence and I say to the hon. members on the other side, I appreciate their indulgence. I appreciate that very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: One point of order, Lloyd.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, he knows that I am probably amongst the least of all who would stand on points of order. I have to say that I also appreciate the concept of factual and accurate commentary being made with respect to what we put forward in terms of our speaking in the House or in terms of our policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: We, on this side of the House, will continue to pursue a development policy that understands what negotiation is about; that understands what the principle of fairness, to all sides, is about; that understands what it takes to attract capital to this Province so that we can move our economy forward; that also understands how important it is to respect and protect the interests of the people of this Province. While we could just as easily, for political purposes, take the same positions that some predecessors on this side of the House took, but we, in our judgement, believe we are not the best.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that you took.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, there is a point in time when we need to reflect. Sometimes we even need to adjust. Sometimes, Madam Speaker, I say to the people on the other side of the House, we have to admit - not that it applies to any particular situation - that probably we need to change course, change direction or be somewhat different in our approach.

I say to the hon. member on the other side, I understand that there is nothing wrong with changing your mind or adjusting your course. I say to the people on the other side of the House, it is a big person who can say, upon reflection, we need to adjust course and we need to take a new direction. It is a very un-pragmatic person who says that this is the answer, this is the outcome, this is what we want to achieve, now lets negotiate against our agenda, and our agenda only. I say, Madam Speaker, no negotiation is real, no negotiation is valid, and no real negotiation or good outcome will be achieved by digging ones heels in and taking a stand that is singularly not going to get the job done. Let us all await the eventual outcome of the discussions we are having with respect to the Voisey’s project.

As I said in the House last week, we will be glad and we will be happy to stand and defend the project that is recommended for development along a specific course of action if in fact we believe it is the right way to go with respect to the development. But, Madam Speaker, make no mistake, we will be just as vigilant, we will be just as faithful, we will be just as open, we will be just as forthcoming, we will be just as explaining to the people of the Province if in fact we do not get a successful negotiation, as to why we could not bring this to a successful conclusion. Either way, Madam Speaker, we will be explaining very clearly and very forthrightly to the people of the Province.

Would we prefer to see the negotiations end successfully? I say respectfully, taking into consideration all of the objectives that we had, we would like to see a successful negotiation concluded. Would it be the end of the world for us if we could not get the right proposition to bring forward, that in our judgement did not look after the best interests of the people of the Province? No, Madam Speaker. We would not be hesitant in turning down a deal if it is not the right deal for the people of this Province and for the future of the people of this Province. To cut to the chase, we are prepared to negotiate, we are prepared we hope to come to a good outcome. The people on the other side have no interest in negotiations. They have no interest in putting forward discussions that will lead to a reasonable outcome. It is a policy, Madam Speaker, I would say that says: it is my way or it’s the highway; understand that and come talk to us on that basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, I submit that that policy of my way or the highway, it is all or nothing, based on what I want. It’s my way or the highway, is a policy that represents a recipe for disaster for the industrial development and for the economic growth of the people of this Province.

I submit, Madam Speaker, that we, as a result of our vision and our visionary approach, will be on this side of the House long after those on the other side of the House, who have lots of dark hair will have nothing but white heads to show, they will be over there that long. Those who have white heads to show, I am not sure where they are going to be by the time they ever get over here.

Madam Speaker, we intend to demonstrate to the people of the Province that when the time comes to go to the polls again we will deserve their respect and support. We believe that at the end of fourteen years of government, the people of the Province will conclude that we are the people to lead into the future as opposed to those who would lead us back to the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I am so delighted to stand tonight. I have been referred to as the copper top in the House but after tonight there is the energizer bunny who was concluding for the last twenty minutes and went on and on. All I could think about, as I was listening to him - he already had his applause, he stayed on his feet - that we have gone through three premiers in this mandate and we could be looking at a fourth one, ending to this mandate, before it is all over.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, that I have never in the nine years - and I bet that many members in this House can say, who have been here for nine years or longer, as the House Leader said earlier tonight, they have never witnessed the abuse of the points of order used in this House tonight. I have never seen it as long as I have been here. It is so revealing. The fact is, the reason for so many points of order was because of the disruption they wanted to put on our leader who was putting forward this particular motion, but it did not work tonight.

I am very proud tonight to stand and second the motion put forward by our leader, the Member for Humber West; very proud to stand tonight on this non-confidence motion. In fact, what our leader has done here tonight, so eloquently and so passively, is put forward the real picture, the real truth of what the people around this Province feel about this particular government and the situations that they find themselves in day after day in this Province; not just in urban Newfoundland, or just in rural Newfoundland, but throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. People have seen exactly that what our leader has put forward tonight is the real picture of this Province. We see it every day as members.

As I listened to, especially the Minister of Mines and Energy tonight, I cannot help but reflect on something that I witnessed this long weekend. This weekend I witnessed something that I would not normally be watching on a Sunday on a long weekend, but because of the bad weather I was in my house at around 1 o’clock or 2 o’clock Sunday. The weather was bad. I happened to go in and turned on the television - my children were watching cartoons so I went in the next room and turned on the TV. Madam Speaker, guess what I saw? Maybe some members here did also because it was such a bad day. I flicked on NTV and here was - I think the program was called Archives, or Today in History, or some program that NTV puts out where they basically look into the archives.

AN HON. MEMBER: Reflections.

MR. SHELLEY: Reflections, maybe that is it. I do not know what the program was called but it was NTV. I just happened to turn it on when this program was starting. Do you know what it was, Madam Speaker? It was the full debate of 1999. Debate ‘99 featuring premier number one, Premier Tobin, our leader at the time, the Member for Kilbride and, of course, the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I do not know if anybody else saw that this weekend but it was on at 2 o’clock; not just pieces, not just parts of it, the entire debate from the opening comments to the closing comments, a full hour.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Signal-Hill-Quidi Vidi says his mother-in-law saw it. A few people did see it. I just happened to turn it on, and I watched it all over again. Madam Speaker, did it ever bring back a lot of memories. Remember, we are just talking about 1999. So fast people say they forget but they don’t if they get a little reminder. That certainly reminded me of the shaking and the dramatics and everything of the Premier as we were trying to get questions in. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I remember trying to get a question in. No way could he get a question in. The Premier, premier number one, the former premier, Premier Tobin, standing in his place debating, believing he owned the studio, and he still had the dramatics going. All the time that I watched him I couldn’t help but smile and almost chuckle. It was serious enough, but it was certainly revealing. It certainly brought back a lot of memories of what I remember in this House of Assembly not so long ago. Three short years ago what this whole debate was all about - from every member opposite on that side of the House and this side of the House. One of the members in the back row tonight made reference to it.

We had a standing ovation for our leader here today after such a speech in the House. She reminded me, I heard her across the way, the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair talked about what they learned from them; and, Madam Speaker, it is true. The first time in this House of Assembly, something that Premier Tobin brought back here that I have not seen previous to that, was the standing ovation for leader, or the standing ovation for the Minister of Finance. That is where I first seen it - Premier Tobin when he first came back here - a standing ovation. I remember long before this debate - before he closed the House and dropped the writ - the standing ovation he got when he stood in his place, shaking with his fist closed as usual, and talking about not one ounce of ore and the mandate that he wanted from the people. He did not want to wait his full mandate. He certainly did not.

As a matter of fact, we could even go back a little further than 1999, when he came into the Province first through acclamation. When Premier Wells stepped down and Premier Tobin waltzed in, and within months - I do not know the exact day, but I think it was weeks -

AN HON. MEMBER: Weeks.

MR. SHELLEY: Days or weeks; when he stood again with the shaking and the clenched fists in this House to another standing ovation and said: We have to go to the people. I haven’t got the mandate. Premier Wells has the mandate. I am going to go to the people of this Province. It is early. It is going to cost us money but I think I need that mandate to secure a deal on Churchill Falls and Voisey’s Bay. So, Madam Speaker, he sold that to the public. He went out and called his mandate. All due respect to the Premier, premier number one went out and sold it to the public that he wanted a new mandate. This was our new shining knight that was going to do the deal. Madam Speaker, in the debate on Sunday - the 1999 debate - he said it again. He reminded us again. Before he even talked about ore leaving the Province, before he talked about any of the details of a deal, there was nothing about the deal. The thing that he was hanging his hat on - and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi will remember this - it was not what the deal was, whether it was ore leaving the Province or not. Do you know what it was, Madam Speaker? It wasn’t a flippant promise made during a campaign. He pointed, basically, to both leaders of the New Democratic Party at the time, and the leader of our party at the time, the Member for Kilbride, and he said: Now, who do you want negotiating this deal? Do you want them or do you want me? That is what he was asking. That is what the debate was all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I was hoping somebody would ask that question. The people said: You, Premier, you are the one. Take us to the polls. We want you to negotiate. They gave him an overwhelming mandate and he sat in that chair as the Premier who promised - and this was not just a flippant promise, Madam Speaker. This was his mandate. This was his foundation. This was what he was all about. Brian Tobin, the great negotiator, the great man that came down, our great Member of Parliament in Ottawa, our front man in the Cabinet of the federal Cabinet, he was the one who was going to say: Listen, compare me to these two leaders. Who do you want to negotiate? They gave him -

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn’t hear him mention (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, he didn’t mention a few members, Madam Speaker, but they gave him an overwhelming mandate on that.

Madam Speaker, I want to make another point. Every member in this House, with all due respect, we all get our mandates through the hard work and the campaigning we do. I appreciate that. I do it; we all do it. I do not take that away from anybody. That is democracy; that is respect. But, Madam Speaker, there is no doubt in anybody’s mind that some members - not all members, but some members - when they get close to winning by ten or fifteen votes in some cases, up to 200 or 300 votes, that it is the history of Newfoundland, not just for Tories or Liberals but all of us, the history of Newfoundland politics is leadership driven. The leader certainly, Madam Speaker, especially if he is ahead in the polls, as the Premier was at the time, if he is ahead in the polls, then certainly, Madam Speaker, some members do get enough to take them over the top.

So, before we even talked about ore leaving the Province, or hydromet or anything else, the Premier stood on TV in this Province, in a straightforward message, to say: Here are the two other leaders. Here is me. Who do you want to negotiate Voisey’s Bay? Before we even discussed the details, before we even got into it.

We know, Madam Speaker, that there are members on the government side, when the Premier’s polls were high, that it may have taken them - I will not say it did - it may have taken them over the top. There were some very close seats in that election and, Madam Speaker, that is what he asked for.

On Sunday, as I watched that debate on NTV, the entire debate, and watched it all over again as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Member for Kilbride were sitting there, he was saying the same thing. Do you know what his words were? I should have written them down, quoted it. Certainly you can get it, I guess, from the archives, the NTV archives, but he said again: I want this mandate to complete the full and total negotiations on Voisey’s Bay and Churchill Falls. Then he went on to say: I have been criticized right across this Province and right across this country because I have stood and said that I am going to take on that deal, the Churchill Falls deal, and, if I have to, I will pull the switch.

That is what he told the people, Madam Speaker. That is what Premier number one, of this mandate, told the people of this Province. That is three, Madam Speaker. The mandate that they sit in today - every single member on the government side sits in a mandate that Premier Tobin called because of his ability to negotiate. That is what he called the mandate on. The members over there, as I said, and I will qualify it by saying many members won large majorities, as the Member for Port de Grave did, a large majority. He did not need the support of the leader to take him over the top. I can point around, and there are many members that had good - the Member for Grand Falls - I give it to her - she had a large majority, no problem. But, there were close seats and the people of this Province know, through history, that an election in this Province is very much leadership driven at many times. Maybe, Madam Speaker, some members may have sat into their mandate because of the help of the leader who was very popular at the time, very popular at the time. Before they discussed the details of Voisey’s Bay and it, was, in fact, through, the mandate was that he could be the best negotiator for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not Premier number two, Mr. Tulk, with all due respect to him; and, it certainly was not the Premier who is sitting here today, who talks about a mandate - every time we stand on our feet. Then, the Minister of Mines and Energy, to have the gall to stand tonight - I made a couple of quotes on him - and said: We should remind ourselves that maybe changing our mind, we need to adjust every now and then. He said: Probably we need to make some change of course, some slight change of course.

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Mines is standing in his place today and has the face - to try to keep a straight face in this House of Assembly while the TV cameras are on and he is still recorded, to stand and say we are going to make some slight change. This is not a slight change. This is a Premier who brought the people to an early election for the second time because he wanted to negotiate a deal on probably one of the most important negotiations that is going on in this Province. That is what this mandate was all about. That is what the people of this Province are going to be asking. In due course they will be asking. They will ask each member in this House, in every seat in this House, where you stood on a mandate of Voisey’s Bay when you were elected in the last election with this particular Premier. That is what it is all going to come down to: who the negotiators should be for this particular deal.

Madam Speaker, since that time, a lot of things have changed since that debate that I watched again on Sunday. A lot of things have changed. People have aged a little bit more. Things have moved on, but people have not forgotten. People have not forgotten. Premier Tobin - the mandate that is sitting here today is still his mandate. The people who are sitting here today, it is still his mandate and they have not forgotten. You might want to think they have forgotten.

The Leader of the Opposition put it quite frank and straight tonight when he talked about this last federal election. I know that this last federal election - usually they like to tie it to: Oh, it is a by-election and it is federal government. I campaigned with Mr. Barnes, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I was in the Premier’s district campaigning, helping as much as we could, and I heard it first-hand.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won that district.

MR. SHELLEY: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he won that district, and throughout that full day in some eight or nine communities, community after community, the big issue was the provincial government and the mandate of Premier Grimes, in his own district. That is what was being talked about over and over and over, Mr. Speaker. That is why I am proud to stand tonight and support this non-confidence motion because I hear it day after day.

Our leader talked about the stats, the reality, the painted picture of people in this Province who have left. In my district, in a place like Middle Arm, where eighteen families left just two weeks ago to go to work in crab plants in P.E.I. or in forestry in Nova Scotia or wherever it may be, they are not too happy when they hear about the Moody’s rating or the GDP, Mr. Speaker. I am proud tonight to stand and support the Member for Humber West, our leader, in this non-confidence motion.

Mr. Speaker, at this time now I would like to add a sub-amendment to the non-confidence motion by adding the following, "And deplores the inordinate swelling of the Public Debt of recent years and urges the Government to limit severely for the foreseeable future the amount by which the Debt is increased."

That is seconded, Mr. Speaker, by the Member for St. John’s East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on with some more points in this sub- amendment that I just made, just to continue on with a thought I had just prior to making the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, many times tonight we referred to a plan and policies, and we listed out quite clearly policies that we have made. In referring again to the debate which I watched on Sunday, of Premier Tobin, the Member for Kilbride and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the one policy in that particular debate that the Premier tried to take and hijack - and ridiculed the Member for Kilbride on a policy that we were bringing forward on tax cuts. As a matter of fact he made fun of it in the House, along with his Minister of Finance at the time, and talked about: what a ridiculous statement, what a ridiculous policy that was, in fact, for our leader to even consider, that we could do a tax cut. He made fun of it, and so did the Minister of Finance at the time.

In the debate again on Sunday, as I watched it, again on several occasions - not just one, but on several occasions - the Premier, during debate on television, talked to the Member for Kilbride and talked about how it was a ridiculous statement, and how we costed it and so on. Of course, he got his mandate and what happened just months later as he moved into the government? The idea of a tax cut might be a good idea. Maybe we should change our minds. Maybe that is what the Minister of Mines was talking about, changing his mind all the time.

You notice, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say this tonight, of all the years that I have been here - and I know the House Leader has been here a lot longer, and some other members, but I have never seen that many points of order in such a short period of time on one person speaking in this House. What was so ridiculous about it, Mr. Speaker, was that the Minister of Mines and Energy had the gall and he stood up in his place, as we all noticed, while he still had television time, stood up and used his whole twenty minutes, went beyond that, and not one member on this side of the House, out of courtesy and respect for what the minister was saying, got up at one time, although we could have gotten up on numerous occasions on points of order.

As the minister talked about earlier, he said we have to make sure the facts are straight and so on. Well, as each member on the opposite side gets up, as likewise when I am on my feet, I am sure members on the other side right now could stand and correct or change or intercede and say something that I am saying that they are not happy with. But they are not doing it right now, are they, Mr. Speaker? No. It is very telling isn’t it? It is very telling that they are not standing. I am sure they did not agree with every word I said here tonight, but they have not stood on a point of order. We did not stand on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We did not stand on a point of order when the Minister of Mines and Energy went on and on talking about his position and what he has put forward. No, Mr. Speaker, we did not.

I have been in this House long enough, too, and sat through the nights on different debates. I have sat here many, many times, I say to the member for Labrador. There were times I wanted to stand on points of order, when I knew people had ten minutes or twenty minutes. We could do it. As a matter of fact, we all know in here today that anybody could stand right now and, of course, give their own point of view of some things I am saying, but they are not doing it because the truth is that tonight, as the leader stood in his place to put forward this non-confidence motion, people on the other side were hurt. They were hurt by it, Mr. Speaker, because the real picture of what is happening in this Province was painted tonight. If people in this Province would have taken the time tonight to view the television or to follow this debate, they would be nodding their heads in agreement. That is what they would be doing, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it strikes home when your own district is mentioned. I think about La Scie. I think about the community of La Scie, a thriving fishing community with a great history. When he read out the numbers tonight, when the leader read out the numbers tonight, of people who have left, I know those people, Mr. Speaker. I know a lot of those people who have left. I have been there. I have been actually in La Scie and Pacquet when U-Hauls were in that community ready to roll out of that community and ready to head to Port aux Basques.

As a matter of fact, CBC did a special documentary on a number of families that were leaving Pacquet, leaving to go to the mainland, and leaving their homes boarded up and heading out to the mainland. CBC did a documentary on that very issue, Mr. Speaker. Day afer day in this Province, we have the stark reality of what is really happening to the people, especially of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Every year, every time we have a debate on the Budget in this House - I have heard it now for my nine years. I did not hear it for the four previous years when they took over government, but every nine years since we have been here, a few of my colleagues, year after year the government stands up to defend the Budget and they just talk about the present year. They never stop to say - you know, you have been there for thirteen years and when we talk about a plan being implemented, as the Minister of Industry did just a few days ago, when he talked about implementing a plan, he talked about how it starting to come now. It is starting to move now. Well, how long does it take for a plan to work? How long does it take before you realize your plan is not working?

As the leader said earlier tonight, which is a good point, you have taken the policies; but even though we have given you good policies, the implementation was the problem. As any good coach will tell you, if you have a good play on paper, whether it is hockey or basketball, that means nothing unless you can execute the play. Well, it is the same with a plan, Mr. Speaker. It is the same with a plan, the plan that we need for this Province with some foresight. If you cannot implement or you cannot execute the plan, it is not worth the paper it is written on. You can take the Blue Book and plagiarize it and copy it and pass it around to every Member in this House of Assembly but, unless you can execute the plan, it does not work. That is why, when the minister stands up and talks about the failure of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, he is talking about a plan that they have been trying to implement.

I always use the example, of course, of the roads program. People are sick and tired of talking about it. The truth is, I am sick and tired of talking about it; but day after day in this House there are more examples, when not just members on this side of the House but members of the minister’s own side come to him and say: The roads are terrible. We have to do something with them, and he has nothing to work with. I have stood many times with this minister and previous ministers and said: I know that you do not have a plan to work with. You have to get something going. That is what it takes. It takes a plan. It takes lobbying. It takes a full proposal. You do not go up to Ottawa looking for a billion dollars with a power point play. You just do not do it. It is not the smart thing to do. You have to go with a plan.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, what you have to ask yourself is: If this was done this year, what was done previous years? This roads problem did not happen this spring. This is not a revelation. This is not something that this year we went up on the Northern Peninsula and saw roads popping - or La Scie, or King’s Point or Little Bay. This is something that has compiled, built up over a long period of time. This is thirteen years of Administration. This is some time when some people have to look and say: Well, after fifteen years, let me see what you have. Let me see what you have been doing. I mean, you cannot go from budget to budget and say we are going to do it this year, we are going to do it next year, because after awhile the people run out of patience, and they say we want to have our say again because we do not believe that your plan is going to work.

That is why, when the minister stands on Voisey’s Bay and talks about Voisey’s Bay, and says: No, we are going to do it right now. We are going to do a little change of heart. We have a little change of mind going on here. It is not a flippant promise, Mr. Speaker. It was a full mandate. It was the underpinnings of his entire mandate, the foundation why he brought it back, why he shook in his seat - when Premier Tobin talked about how he was going to handle Voisey’s Bay, and, how good am I? That is what he was saying when he was pointing to both leaders at the time. That was what he was saying.

That is what I will conclude with, Mr. Speaker, that Premier number one, not Premier number two or three, Premier number one, stood up in this Province in front of everybody, whether it was in the Red Book or standing in front of a television camera, which he loves so much, and stood and shook and said: I am the best man to deliver a good deal. I am the fellow who can complete it. Give me your vote, I will complete it. If we do not, we will pull the switch. We will do something, but I am going to complete the deal and I am going to be here - remember his other quote from the debate - every day, every week, every month, every year of that debate.

Well, Mr. Speaker, look where he left the group that he brought with him. Where is he now? That is what people are going to be reminded about. Do not think that people are going to forget that. You can play and twist every shape, every turn on Voisey’s Bay you want, but you know in the back of your mind -

MR. BARRETT: Tobin didn’t bring us here.

MR. SHELLEY: I have to repeat that so we can have it for Hansard. The Member for Bellevue, the Minister of Transportation, now says: Tobin didn’t bring us here.

He did not lead you on. You weren’t the one standing in your seat with a standing ovation, walking over to shake his hand on the great speech when he says: not one ounce of ore to leave this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we all remember it well. It is just too bad - do you know what is too bad about it? It is too bad that you did not follow our policy earlier on, bringing television cameras into this House of Assembly so people could see it for themselves. It is in Hansard and it is etched in people’s minds, when he went on television with his great commercials and how they scrambled around in the last seven days of the last election to change their ad because people in the Province where sick and tired of him saying it over and over, because they wanted to talk about health care.

That is what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker. When we go to the people, we are not just going to talk about Voisey’s Bay. We are going to talk about health care, and we are going to talk about education, the real issues that mean something to the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not going to talk about GDP and the Moody’s ratings. We are going to talk about some real issues that face people in Newfoundland and Labrador today, because that was drama. That is what that was back there. It is etched in the back of people’s minds. It is not forgotten. I have bad news for you. They do not forget it, they have not forgotten it, it is not over yet. Do you know when the light is going to back on, Mr. Speaker? The day the writ is dropped, people are going to come back on that this Premier, Premier number three, is very closely related to Premier number one and he is also a distant cousin of Premier number two. They were all there, Mr. Speaker, every single one of them were there, and Premier number two who just went out and had a federal election.

I say to the Member for Bellevue, the last Premier, Premier number two who just went out and really got the wrath of what is really happening in this Province, he could tell you first-hand. When he was going around, I heard it and other members here who were campaigning in the federal election heard it day after day. As a matter of fact, there were times during the federal election that this member, the new Member for Gander-Grand Falls, when he thought they were only talking about provincial issues and the provincial government all the time. He made jokes about it. They were not talking about the federal issues all the time. In many parts of the campaign they were referring to this government, the present Premier, and what the situation is in this Province today. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, people in this Province gave Premier number two, the former Minister of Industry and Trade -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I know there were a lot of complaints where you were, in Little Bay Islands, where there was 92 per cent Tory vote the last time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I guess the complaints came from the 8 per cent that you were talking to.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to clue up now by saying that, on this particular motion that the leader put forward tonight, and the sub-amendment, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this Province have been painted the real picture of what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. They want some vision of what is going to happen in the next five years and ten years. They are the most critical years, probably, coming in our history, and it is our chance to do it right for a change. We have to do it right this time because we are not going to get a lot more chances.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for a few minutes this evening and speak to the sub-amendment to the non-confidence motion. The sub-amendment, of course, was presented to this House by my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte. Of course, his sub-amendment was to the non-confidence motion that was presented to the House by the Leader of the Opposition.

I am pleased to second the sub-amendment and to speak for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Budget debate and incorporate in my few words, Mr. Speaker, reference to both the non-confidence motion and the sub-amendment to the non-confidence motion as presented by my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose when we are dealing with issues of budgetary importance and when we are speaking, whether it is with respect to the non-confidence motion or the sub-amendment that has been presented, perhaps one of the most important areas for discussion that can be made in this Chamber this evening is direct reference to what was referred to earlier by my colleague, the Member for Humber West, the Report of the Auditor General.

In this report, Mr. Speaker, an independent individual who was appointed by this Chamber, an individual appointed by the members of this hon. House, having reviewed and audited and assessed the financial picture of this Province, in her independent report she makes a number of recommendations as she sees, having reviewed and having assessed what the financial particulars and the financial details of the Province are. I would just like to review very briefly what some of these recommendations are, as expressed by the Auditor General in her most recent report that was filed in the year 2001. She begins by stating, Mr. Speaker, that, "Government should consider recoding its revenues on a full accrual basis." This was alluded to in some detail, perhaps in greater detail, by the Leader of the Opposition earlier this evening.

A second recommendation, Mr. Speaker, is that, "For Government’s financial planning to be focused on a complete picture of its finances, the House of Assembly should be presented with a budget prepared on the accrual basis of accounting (i.e. including all adjustments required by generally accepted accounting practices) and the budget should include all Government entities. This budget would then serve as a means of holding Government accountable for its activities in any given year."

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we pay particular attention to what the Auditor General is saying when she says and, in fact, emphasizes the fact that there should be a revelation of all budgetary information, including all government entities.

The Auditor General continues, Mr. Speaker, by stating that, "The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission and the Memorial University of Newfoundland should be included in the Government reporting entity."

I think this is indeed a very important reference, Mr. Speaker, simply because we have two entities. We have two institutions that are obviously exempt from the close scrutiny of the Auditor General. She makes it very clear when she reviews both the Workers’ Compensation Commission and our Memorial University of Newfoundland that these two institutions ought to be included in a very close audit and assessment and eventually information being revealed and reported by the Auditor General. In fact, she states in her report that, "Our review of the Memorial University Act indicates that the University is accountable to and controlled by Government. The Province of Manitoba..." as an example, "...has included two of its four universities in the government reporting entity. While other provinces have not included universities in their consolidated summary financial statements, in British Columbia, for the past several years, the Auditor General expressed a qualified opinion regarding the decision by the Government of that Province to reverse the prior inclusion of universities in its Summary Financial Statements. In most other jurisdictions, Auditor Generals have expressed concerns similar to...." the concerns expressed in this Province, that they simply do not have access to the books. They do not have the ability to closely scrutinize what is taking place in an institution that, of course, costs taxpayers millions of dollars on a yearly basis. Without that ability to closely scrutinize, we are not able to know exactly where this particular institution stands in its obligation to be accountable, not only to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador but obviously, Mr. Speaker, in saying that, to all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General goes on to state that, "Government should continue with its efforts to improve the completeness and accuracy of its capital assets." She also states that, "Government should continue efforts to prepare periodic financial statements."

So it is clear in this review, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor General has some serious concerns that she found, and her staff and her officials found, having had the opportunity, of course, and this is an exercise and a procedure that is carried out on an annual basis, but it is clear again this year that she found loopholes, she found weaknesses, and she was prepared quite freely to tell the government of this Province and, in so doing, to tell the people of the Province, what those weaknesses and what those loopholes were.

Obviously, now it is incumbent on the government to take seriously what the Auditor General has had to say and hopefully make the necessary changes, make the necessary improvements to ensure that there is greater accountability in the fiscal and the financial dealings and management of this Province.

The Auditor General concludes by stating that government should continue efforts to improve the timeliness in preparing its financial statement. Again, Mr. Speaker, when the Auditor General calls upon government to reveal information in a timely fashion, she does this because she has concluded, and her staff has concluded, that this is something which is necessary for the proper fiscal management of this Province. Again, government must heed what is being said and take into account the good works of an independent office, of a person who is appointed independently by this House, to ensure that the proper accountability takes place.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps when we look at the full Report of the Auditor General, as opposed to the condensed version, we see quite clearly that the Auditor General takes exception and is not prepared to notify all members, and notify the public of the Province, that she does take exception to the fact that there has been an obvious non-compliance with the Financial Administration Act. And, of course, when we review very carefully what she has had to say, we see there is a breach of the act. In other words, there is a breach of the law. The law has been broken. One of the most important statutes that perhaps governs the affairs and the activities of this government, namely the Financial Administration Act, provisions of that act have been breached. Provisions of that act have been broken. She states in her introduction that the Financial Administration Act is the primary act governing the financial operations of the Province.

I would say that this information, and this sharing of information that the Auditor General is prepared to do, is fundamentally important to the discussion that we are now having with respect to the Budget debate, the subsequent non-confidence motion, and the subsequent amendment to the non-confidence motion, whereby the sub-amendment states: By adding the following, "And deplores the inordinate swelling of Public Debt of recent years and urges the Government to limit severely for the foreseeable future the amount by which the Debt is increased."

Clearly, if we are going to deal with the amendment to the non-confidence motion, what better way is there in responding to this amendment by simply addressing the real concerns that the Auditor General has expressed and, in particular, by pointing out that the terms and the provisions of the Financial Administration Act have been clearly breached, and the terms and conditions have been ignored by this government over the past fiscal year.

The Financial Administration Act outlines the legislative requirements, Mr. Speaker, for the collection and disbursement of public funds, the raising of certain loans authorized by the Legislature, and the auditing of the financial statements of the Province. She states that, concepts provided for in the act and central to our democratic system are that government cannot spend beyond the limits approved by the Legislature.

That seems to make sense. As individuals we understand that. As families we ought to understand that. As businesses and corporations we ought to understand that, but it is interesting to note that it takes the Auditor General to advise government that government, too, ought to understand that.

She states that government cannot spend beyond the limits approved by the Legislature, money can only be spent for purposes authorized by the Legislature, and government cannot raise money without the approval of the Legislature. These are provisions that are clearly outlined, Mr. Speaker, in the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, and she makes it quite clear in her annual report that these provisions have been breached, if not ignored.

She states, in her conclusion in the Report of the Auditor General, that during the reviews that she conducted and the audit and the assessments that her office conducted in leading to the end of the fiscal year of March 2001, she determines that a number of government departments were not obviously complying with the act, and she gives a few examples. She states that a number of departments entered into commitments for goods and services in excess of the amounts of funding provided for by the Legislature. Clearly, the departments acted beyond their control. They acted outside the scope of their authority and expended monies for which they were not given the legislative power to do so.

She also states, Mr. Speaker, that a number of departments made payments from accounts for purposes other than authorized by the Legislature. That raises an interesting question because the next question that has to be asked is: Well, from which source were these monies spent? What authority was given to departments, whether it be through the deputy minister or other officials in the department, to expend monies for which approval was not given from one department to the other?

She also states that a number of Crown agencies borrowed money without the authority of the Legislature. Again, the question has to be asked: How can this be done? How can this be done without any thought of if, in fact, it were done without the necessary approval, that Crown corporations or government officials or deputy ministers could think, for a moment, that they would get away with it?

Mr. Speaker, what is being addressed by the Auditor General in her last report is a direct consequence of perhaps why we are discussing this very issue here this evening. We are saying, as an Opposition, that this budgetary process is flawed, that government is not being truly accountable to the people of the Province and that is presumably why, and obviously is why, the Leader of the Opposition will introduce in this Legislature this evening a motion of non-confidence. Furthermore, it explains why my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte, would introduce a sub-amendment to the non-confidence motion; simply because we have direct evidence from an independent official of this government and an independent official of this House of Assembly showing direct and basic breaches of one of the most important pieces of legislation in this Province, namely the terms, the provisions and the tenets of the Financial Administration Act. So, it is only consistent with what the Opposition is saying and only perhaps gives a better explanation as to why, Mr. Speaker, we feel it is important to dispute what government members are saying with respect to its budgetary process, question the numbers and again, gives a greater explanation as to why a non-confidence motion is being introduced at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will call upon my colleague, the Member for Ferryland. I understand he has a few comments to make with respect to, I believe, either the amendment, the main motion, or the non-confidence motion. I will let my colleague explain exactly on which point he wishes to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an opportunity to have a few words. I say to my colleague, I had a few words on the main motion. I am going to use this opportunity now to speak on the sub-amendment. I understand I have about twenty minutes on the sub-amendment. I have not had a chance yet, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the non-confidence motion, so that is another twenty minutes when the time comes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess we will all get a chance to speak on the sub-amendment first, then we will have to speak on the non-confidence motion, and then we will get back to the main motion. With their generosity, Mr. Speaker, I might get leave to speak on that main motion again, if that is possible.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You do? I do not think the Minister of Mines and Energy is telling the truth when he says that. I do not think he is telling the truth. I think he can hear me quite well.

By the way, this sub-amendment to the non-confidence motion, moved by my colleague from Baie Verte, says: "And deplores the inordinate swelling of Public Debt of recent years and urges the Government to limit severely for the foreseeable future the amount by which the Debt is increased."

I have heard members in this House, Mr. Speaker, tell how much the previous PC Government has contributed to the debt of this Province. Well, I would like to give just a little history lesson to put the debt in perspective, and who has contributed what to the debt of this Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) it is history you are into now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is history. I think the Mines and Energy Minister could take a lesson in history. I can say his memory is not very good on short-term, so I do not want to test him on long-term questions. He cannot remember what the Premier says - premier one or premier two or premier three - from one day to the next.

I might add, back in 1972 - we are talking about debt. The total debt of our Province in 1972 was $1,026,312,000. In 1989, after the PCs had a chance to get their hands on the finances of this Province - I say it is in the public record, anyone can check - the debt of our Province at that time, the total public sector debt was $4.8 billion. Since then, the public sector debt - and we are not looking at the public accounts on an accrual basis. We are just taking into consideration the direct debt of our Province, adding the debt from Crown corporations and adding your assets from Sinking Fund, giving it a total public sector debt. I will just run through it very quickly. For example, way back in 1967 it was only $449 million; less than $500 million. In fact, in one of those years, during the previous Smallwood era, this Province spent 40 per cent more money than it took it. In other words, can you imagine spending 40 per cent more money than you took in? For example, if you took in $1 billion and spent $1.4 billion. That is an astronomical amount of money to go beyond your budget.

In the 1960s the debt went - for example, in 1967 the debt went from $449 million to $68 million. It went up to $573 million. We went up $124 million in one year. Then it went to $670 million. Almost another $100 million on the debt again the next year in 1969, and that was dollars at that time. That is pretty significant when you compare it to today’s dollars. Then in 1970 it jumped again to $744 million. It jumped another $74 million. It went up $111 million the next year to $855 million. The next year it jumped $170 million, from 1971 until 1972. You can see there was a big jump in the budget.

From then on it went up; from 1973 right on up to 1989. In 1989, I made reference, the budget of our Province in 1989 - the deficit was $4.8 billion. We see that in 1990 it went to $5.1 billion; 1991, $5.3 billion; 1992 it went to $5.8 billion; 1993 to $6.2 billion. I am rounding these off to the nearest $100 million. In 1994, $6.6 billion; 1995, $6.9 billion; in 1996 it took a jump. One time revenues in 1997 helped the situation. It went down to $6.4 billion, and to $5.9 billion in 1998. Since 1998, when it was $5.9 billion, it jumped in 1999 then to $6.4 billion. Can you imagine, $500 million added to the deficit in one year from 1998 to 1999. Then in 1999-2000, it jumped another couple of hundred million; in 2001 up to over $7 billion. Of course, the projected budget here, who knows what it is going to be. We cannot believe the figures we saw tabled in this particular budget.

When you look at the debt, we have pretty well - this government has almost doubled the debt of this Province in thirteen years. In fact, if you look at our consolidated net debt and the consolidated net debt of our Province, in 1997 - the last election was in 1999 - a year after the 1996 election - when we used to have elections in less than three years, and I know all about having elections in less than three years because from 1992 when I got elected, to 1999 - in less than seven years actually. In seven years minus four months, which would be eighty months, we went through four elections. The longest I have seen an election go since I got elected, and I have been elected four times, it has gone almost three years. We almost got three years out of an election. We have not yet gotten three years out of an election.

Now with three premiers in the last several months - we are gone into our fourth year with three premiers. You talk about a mandate there. The consolidated net debt, as shown in the public accounts of our Province, was $7.4 billion in 1997. Can you imagine? This government has taken our debt from $7.4 billion in 1997 - at the end of the fiscal year just ended, we will have added 20-some per cent on top of our debt in just five years. We will be reaching up close to $9 billion from $7.3 billion in just five years. You tell us we are on a path to economic success. That is utterly ridiculous. Nobody in this Province believes the picture that is being painted here by this government and by the minister. They do not believe it. In fact, Moody’s did not believe it. The Bank of Montreal did not believe it. The Auditor General did not believe it. In fact, reputable economists out there making statements on our finances do not believe it. They just do not believe it. The Bank of Montreal - and the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair - I will get this established. The Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair sold out the people of Labrador by supporting the raiding of the transportation initiative.

The very time when the Member for Labrador West was out in the lobby of this Confederation Building doing an interview with a media station on supporting going against the government’s direction, she rushed out and tried to interrupt saying: Get him away from there! Get him away from there! The people in Labrador are supporting this. Well, the people in Labrador are not all supporting this, I can tell you. They are not all supporting that. I have a statement here too, if you want me to read it. If you want me to read the statement, what Lawrence O’Brien said and John Hickey and these people. I made reference to that here in the House before. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but to rush out in the middle of an interview and say: Don’t do that interview - to tell the Member for Labrador West - they are all in favour of it in Labrador. To interrupt an interview. He was elected by Labrador West. He was not elected by people in Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That’s right, and you found out when you had your executive meeting, how much control you have over the people of Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair. You will find out in due course because when you sell people out there is a price to pay in the long term, and that price will come in due course. The same as your predecessor was in this House, he decided to turn his back on the people and he got kicked out of office. That is why you are here, and you will find out in due course. The people in Labrador will speak in due course.

We have seen the debt, Mr. Speaker, in this Province go from $7.4 billion under this government in 1997 to $7.664 billion in 1998. In 1999, we saw the debt go to $7.818 billion. The year after, in 2000, we saw the debt go to $8.87 billion. Then in 2001, to $8.437 billion debt in our Province. Can you imagine? In four years they put a billion dollars on the debt, and this past year probably close to another half-a-billion dollars on the debt. That is unbelievable. That is not a record of success. That is not the record of a government who is going to stand up and try to convince people all is well.

When this government came to power in 1989 there were 583,000 people in this Province. Today, if you look at the census for 2001, from a year ago now, I think that is partially outdated now, we have lost 70,000 people from our Province in the thirteen years of this government. That is an astronomical drop. The telling thing is that the rate has not slowed down. The rate has increased. We have lost 40,000 of these in the last five years.

Our Leader of the Opposition referred to many communities all over this Province who are the victims of a failed rural development program, an economic development for rural Newfoundland. They are victims of that. It is not easy to turn around the economy in rural Newfoundland but I do not know why people - they stand and the minister says what? Sixty-three percent of the jobs, he said, created in this Province are created in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why they are leaving in busloads practically. In busloads they are leaving.

MR. BARRETT: Where? Here?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, you should get up and shed some light on this Budget. You should get up and tell us about the inability of government to solve the declining problems in rural Newfoundland, because it is the policies of this government that is decimating rural Newfoundland. People cannot get enough hours of work to even draw EI because of the policies of this government, in rural Newfoundland. That is what is happening. That is part of the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and I do not have to tell the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture some of the things that are decimating rural Newfoundland - and by his predecessor, actually. His predecessor presided over many of these policies and departments that have negative aspects. That has basically happened.

We have seen an out-migration of people in rural Newfoundland, and this government talks about its Gross Domestic Product, how great it is. Gross Domestic Product is not what makes a province improve. Gross Domestic Product is relevant. Gross Domestic Product is relevant if the economic growth in this Province stays within the Province, but if they go elsewhere it is not. That is why we see this government, since 1989, and particularly into the mid-1990s, nearly everybody was there then, we have seen a widening of the gap between personal disposable income and Gross Domestic Product. We have seen it as parallel; as Gross Domestic Product increased in our Province, personal disposable income kept about 80 per cent of that, but today we are seeing that personal disposable income is only about 60 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. What does it tell us? It tells us that the money we are getting from our economic activity is not staying in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is going elsewhere, going outside this country, Mr. Speaker, and that is a major problem. That is why we are having a major problem.

If you look at 2000, for example, look at the GDP in 2000. It was up in the $13 billion range, when the personal disposable income was only about $8.5 billion. Personal disposable income now, in the year 2000, is no more than it was in the year 1990. In other words, there is no collective money. If you took all the income on everybody in this Province, that they have at their personal disposal, and put that together, it was the same in the year 2000 as it was in 1990. But, our Gross Domestic Product has gone from about 10.3 up to about 13. We have seen almost a 30 per cent increase in our Gross Domestic Product and we have seen no increase in personal disposable income. That is a telling tale.

What other yardsticks for measuring the economy have we seen? Have we seen a huge decrease in the unemployment rates? No. Have we seen profits, performances and so on increase? No. We have not seen many of the indicators of a growing economy, an effect the Province has not been seeing here in the economy in our Province. Why is that? Well, because of the policies. Policies dedicate results. Policies are what get results. And, if in thirteen years you have not brought in policies - Clyde Wells managed decline. That is what he tried to do. He said he was going to manage decline, in other words, and he certainly managed decline.

AN HON. MEMBER: Remember what Peckford said about him. He said he did not have the intestinal fortitude to do what needed to be done.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, he did the honourable thing. Brian Peckford did the honourable thing, I would say. That is more than I can say about the Premier of this Province today. He did the honourable thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: He took off and went to the mainland. He did the right thing? He took off and went to the mainland. Is that what you are saying?

MR. SULLIVAN: Premier number two tried to go to the mainland too. Premier number two tried to go to the mainland but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador said: We don’t want you to go there. We are going to defeat you. You put us in a plight and we are not going to send you to Ottawa. We are going to leave you here to rot in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what the people in Newfoundland and Labrador said.

MR. BARRETT: Your leader talks about giving us bulk (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Works, Service and Transportation knows all about bulk. He knows all about bulk water, I can tell you. He spoke out against government on it but, when it came to a vote count, he changed his mind again. The Premier of the Province talked about shipping out water, but he forgot to do an economic analysis. He forgot to find out that there is no profit, very little profit. It does not generate the amount -

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn’t (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We have said that. That is what we did. We certainly did. We have raised those issues, the same way that the Auditor General said we are the least accountable government in this entire country. The National Post has quoted it. It is a quote in The National Post.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. The Auditor General is quoted in The National Post.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) and you are still wrong. You are still misleading the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Auditor General said all of the provinces except Newfoundland and Labrador -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Auditor General’s report, even though you quoted from it the other day (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Is the hon. member finished now? I can continue?

The Auditor General said all of the provinces are accountable except Newfoundland and Labrador. Wouldn’t that make you the least accountable? She said, the least accountable of all governments in Canada. It is a quote. It is in The National Post. I will get the quote.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). On Thursday you said it was in her report and now you have changed your mind. See how you mislead people?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: You said it was in her report (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Is your hockey team losing, I might say to him? You are having a fit over there. It must be tied. I hope somebody wins. Someone will go home happy then tonight. I just hope somebody wins.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your mathematics, they are leading one to one.

MR. SULLIVAN: One to one is not a lead. If that is the kind of math you are doing over there, there is no wonder we have a financial problem in our Province today, if that is the kind of math that you say, one and one, somebody is leading.

We talk about the debt here in our Province. That is what this amendment is about. This amendment that is proposed by the Member for Baie Verte is a very, very telling amendment. In fact it tells us that - if you look at it, just look at the record that this government has published. Just look at the records, the public accounts of this Province, that show what our debt is. Can you help but draw this conclusion, the same conclusion that was drawn over thirty years ago almost, "And deplores the inordinate swelling of Public Debt of recent years and urges the Government to limit severely for the foreseeable future the amount by which the Debt is increased."

In the Auditor General’s report, "Our review has disclosed that in all jurisdictions, except this Province, an annual report is required to be tabled in the Legislature by departments and Crown agencies." True accountability requires, "While government has undertaken some initiatives to improve accountability within Government, none of the initiatives undertaken by Government require any of the plans, information or reports to be tabled in the House of Assembly. True accountability requires that this information be provided to the House of Assembly."

She went on and she was quoted, I might add, in The National Post as saying we are the least accountable of all governments in this country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker? Just a couple of hours to finish up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John’s West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Which book are you reading from?

MS S. OSBORNE: I am not going to read from any book.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this House of Assembly and over the last little while - as a matter of fact, over the last long while - I have heard people on the other side talk about the wonderful state of the economy and the wonderful credit rating we have, and how much Moody’s thinks of us, and about our GDP rating. Mr. Speaker, I would say that a lot of people in the Province would be impressed by that, but I am wondering how the one out of every four hungry children who go to school every day really feel about what Moody’s think of us.

As I listened to them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John’s West.

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

As I have listened to the crowd on the other side get up and talk about what a wonderful credit rating we have, I used to reflect on different things. One of the things I reflected on was a visit that I made to a school - as a matter of fact, that school was in the District of St. John’s West - and they did a project on poverty. I went around and saw the different posters on the wall, and there was a little girl there who was asked to define poverty. She said: Poverty is pretending that you forgot your lunch.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS S. OSBORNE: Poverty is pretending that you forgot your lunch.

That is one of the four children in the Province. I wondered, as I sat and listened to our Moody’s rating and I listened to how wonderful our GDP rating is, how that little girl and how a lot of the other children in the Province would feel, and how impressed they would be about where we stood with Moody’s.

Canada is seventeenth in developing countries, in child poverty. It ranks seventeenth. Seventeenth, Mr. Speaker, is not a very great rating to have. I might add that Newfoundland is the worst Province in Canada in child poverty. So, really, we are the worst of a bad lot. The child poverty rating in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is double what the child poverty rating is in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. We lead the country in child poverty. No matter what our Moody’s rating is, or no matter what our Gross Domestic Product is, still we have children going to school hungry. While the rest of the provinces of Canada are at least seeing a decline in their poverty rate, this Province continues to see an increase. As I said, Mr. Speaker, we are double the child poverty rate in Nova Scotia and double the child poverty rate in Prince Edward Island.

This poverty has been outlined in many of the reports that have been commissioned by this government. As I said, these reports say that one in four of our children go to school hungry. It has also been shown that, when children go to school hungry, they cannot learn. They have a lot more difficulty learning. Many of the schools, I know, have introduced a school breakfast program; but, while our children go to school hungry, they are unable to learn. When they sit in the classroom hungry and they experience difficulty in learning, that leads to behaviour problems. Then they become outcasts among their peers because of the behaviour problems. Then they are inclined not to even go to school. Eventually, these children will drop out of school. Then, as undereducated and either underemployed or unemployed as adults, they begin their own families and the circle of poverty continues. So, while all these children are out there going to school hungry, we have a good Moody’s rating or our GDP rate is great. So what?

The government seems to be proud of our credit rating and proud of our ability to borrow. We would liken it to parents. If you were parents of children and you went to the bank, or the bank told you that you had a great credit rating, or the bank sent you a letter and said, you have the ability to borrow this, you would feel great. You would feel: Oh, gosh, yes, that makes me feel good. I have the ability to borrow. But then, if you looked at your children going to school with no sneakers on, or no clothes on their back, how good would it feel? How good would it feel if the bank sent you a letter and said you could borrow as much money as you want, or you have been approved to borrow $20,000 or approved to borrow $30,000, and you had children there on the floor and you did not have enough food to put on the table for them? That is the same thing. This Province is bragging about its great credit rating and its ability to borrow, and the children of this Province, the children who are the owners of the resources of this Province, are going to school hungry and teachers have to feed them and school breakfast programs have to feed them. The people who are running the finances of this Province have the gall to stand and up and say what a wonderful credit rating we have, while they allow these children to go to school hungry.

While I listened to the great credit rating that this Province has, I remember a couple of senior citizens I heard from last month. Both of them were in their seventies. They have been together now for over half a century, and the woman of this couple has dementia and her husband is not feeling up to par himself. They live alone in rural Newfoundland and they live in their own home, the home that they have had for over half a century, and they want to stay there. This rural Newfoundland couple, in their seventies, could stay in their own home if they had four or five hours a day of home care, but they cannot get the four or five hours a day of home care. Sometimes the woman of the couple, because of her dementia, is not really all that fastidious about her personal hygiene and her husband has to go and help her, and he has gone and asked: Could I have somebody come in, please, and help my wife, at least with her personal care? so that they could stay in their own home. He asked the person at the community health board or at the Department of Health, whatever happens to be in his community, would they come in and take a look at the situation, and they did. They went in and they assessed this couple and they said yes, you have been approved for four to five hours a day home care. The gentleman was delighted. He said: But there is a freeze on home care, Sir, so we cannot send anybody to assist you and your wife with taking care of herself personally, for six to eight months.

Ask that gentleman how he feels about Moody’s. Ask that gentleman how he feels about the Gross Domestic Product, when he has to go and take care of his wife’s personal needs when he is not feeling too well himself.

I had another call, Mr. Speaker, from the family of a woman who is eighty-six years old. She has a bad heart and she cannot cook for herself. Normally her son and his wife, who live in the same community, and they live quite close by, go over a couple of hours a day and take care of their mother and see to her needs; but, because of the state of the employment here in the Province, her son has to go away to work. She needs help a couple of days a week. That is all. That is all this woman was asking for. She has been assessed. She is eligible for home care but she cannot get home care either for six or eight months. Now, what is going to happen with this particular woman is that she is going to have to go to an institution. When we look at and talk about mismanagement, I wonder what kind of a rating Moody’s has put on this kind of thought: No, no, we will send her to an institution and we will pick up the tab for that, but because there is a freeze on home care we cannot give her a couple of hours, a few days a week, home care to allow her to remain in her own home until her son gets home from his six months of work.

Another gentleman called me. His mother is seventy-four years of age and she lives in her own home. He is going to Labrador to work for the summer. They are willing to pay a portion of the home care. They have been assessed and it has been determined that they would have to pay for a couple of hours a day. They are willing to do that. They do not have a problem with that at all. Now this woman cannot get home care either because there is a freeze on home care. She is picking up a couple of hours a day; the couple of hours that she can afford. She cannot get the balance from the government because, once again, the same answer: Oh yes, you have been assessed, and we have determined that you do need home care but you are unable to access it for six to eight months because of the freeze. Who knows, Mr. Speaker, what situation that woman will be in when the freeze is lifted, if the freeze is ever lifted.

I had a call a couple of weeks ago - and this was referenced in the copious notes of the Minister of Finance, this particular one - from a woman on the West Coast. She suffered a series of mini-strokes and she was threatening to have a major stroke. She needed an ultrasound. She had to wait three months. The three months’ wait not only put her life in danger because of the stroke, but the stress that was on her because she could not access an ultrasound for three months compounded the situation. I thought to myself, I wonder how she would feel now if she turned on the radio and heard the Minister of Finance say: What a wonderful rating we were given by Moody’s. How good our credit rating is. How good the GDP is. What difference does it make to this woman or to the previous people that I have spoken about?

Three weeks ago - and I referenced this one here in the House of Assembly - we had a woman in the hospital waiting for surgery. She was scheduled for surgery twice and the nature of her surgery was that there had to be a team in place. The surgical team had been in place each of the times that her surgery was scheduled but she was cancelled twice because there was no bed in ICU. We checked with ICU and there was, in fact, no vacancy there but there were a couple of beds there that could become available if the people who were medically discharged from ICU to the floor had been able to get to the floor, then this woman who was waiting for her surgery, surgery that she needed to save her life, would have been able to get her surgery if there wasn’t so much mismanagement of the dollars in health care.

Four weeks ago there was a gentleman in St. Clare’s Hospital, and the doctors told him he needed surgery to save his life. It was whipple surgery that he needed because of pancreatic problems that he was having. He was scheduled, and he was cancelled. There was no ICU bed, was what the doctors told him. They were right ready to go, and it was a matter of life and death. Basically, what the doctors told him is that he would live about three weeks if he did not have the surgery but if he did have the surgery his chances would be increased to living for five years. He was scheduled -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS S. OSBORNE: It is alright for the members opposite to make fun of people who are in the hospital and their very lives depend on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, of the different stories in the naked city. The Minister of Finance can cover her face with her book and whisper behind it. It does not matter to me because the people in our Province are out there suffering and it is a big joke on the other side. There is probably 500,000 stories in the naked city, sir, because the people in this Province are suffering while you guys stand up in this House of Assembly and brag about your credit rating. I would not care how many letters came to my house from my bank telling me how much I could borrow if my children went to school with empty bellies. That is the same situation that is happening in this Province, and you can sit over there with a cavalier attitude and talk about how many stories are in the naked city. Yes, sir, that is what is happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: I will get back to this gentleman who needed the whipple surgery, he had three weeks to live without it. The surgery was scheduled, they came up and his family were standing there, and they said the surgery is cancelled. Why was the surgery cancelled? They said there was no bed in ICU. I called over to ICU and the same woman who was medically discharged six months ago from St. Clare’s ICU was still there because they couldn’t get their act together to get this woman moved into a long-term care facility with a ventilator. She is still taking up a $1,200-a-day bed when she could be out in a long-term home. They could not get their act together to get this woman moved out, and this man’s very life depended on it. Calls had to be made within the system and, I suppose, then they would know that a more public issue would be made of it, but tell that gentleman - I could have walked into that gentleman’s room and I could have told his family: Listen guys, do you know what a good credit rating we got from Moody’s? Do you know that this government is able to borrow all this money from Moody’s? Do you know what our GDP is? What the heck would they care? Their father was there dying and there was no bed available in ICU to enable him to have his surgery.

I got another call from a woman who had an abnormality in her breast. Any woman out there who has had a breast abnormality and has a history of breast cancer can tell you the dread that a woman feels when the doctor says you have an abnormality in your breast. She had surgery, and after the surgery the doctor said: ma’am you are going to need to have breast screening done every six months. The woman went to her doctor every six months for a couple of years and each time she went to the doctor he gave her a requisition to go get her breast screening. She was given a breast screening appointment for six months, and it rotated like that. She was being vigilant of her case because the doctor told her you have an abnormality and there is a history of breast cancer in you family. The last time she went to the doctor he gave her the requisition and she called the breast screening clinic. She should have been able to have her appointment in November. She was given her appointment for February 2003 because there are cutbacks to the breast screening program that is happening at St. Clare’s.

There is a woman in Central Newfoundland, and she called me within the last month. She had surgery for breast cancer eight weeks ago and the doctors told her she had aggressive grade two cancer. She had an appointment to come in to see an oncologist in Central Newfoundland for late May but the oncologist clinic was cancelled because of the shortage of oncologists here in the Province and because of the pressure that is on them. It was undetermined when this woman with grade two aggressive cancer could be seen by an oncologist to get radiation set up for her. She needed to see the oncologist before the radiation could be set up.

In any case, she put some pressure on the department and was able to get her appointment straightened up. I said to her: well that’s fine, I am glad that you have your appointment. She said: no, Mrs. Osborne it is not fine, I had to fight too hard to get this appointment. How many other people are out there who would not have the will to fight, or they would be too sick to fight, or they just would not have the wherewithal to know how to make several calls and get the appointment changed? She was able to get her appointment changed but she said: Please, bring this up in the House of Assembly for me so that other women out there, who are in the same situation, maybe it will be relieved for them.

I did not say to that woman: Did you know we have a really good credit rating with Moody’s? Did you hear the latest on our GDP? Quite frankly, I do not think it would have mattered.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member’s time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

I would like to talk about the people in our Province who suffer from mental illness, their families and the stress on them, and how much they would worry about the credit rating, and how much they would worry about the Gross Domestic Product. Tell Norman Reid’s family what a good credit rating we have with Moody’s when that gentleman’s lights were cut off and not paid for the sake of $35. And we have a good credit rating! Tell the family of Norman Reid. Tell the family of Darryl Power what a good credit rating we have when the resources that these gentlemen needed out in the community were not there because we have to institutionalize people from our mental institutions, which is not a bad thing to do, but when we send them out into the community with absolutely no resources to take care of them and fatalities such as this occur, then we should be ashamed of ourselves.

There are 10,000 people in this Province, Mr. Speaker, suffering from serious mental illness. They are out in the community and at present there are no resources. It is estimated that 80 per cent to 85 per cent of this Province’s mental health budget is committed to the institutional sector verus the community health boards. Basically, the money is in the institutions but when they discharge those people from the mental institutions and turn them out, there are very few dollars that follow them into the community. I wonder how they feel when they pick up The Telegram and see what our credit rating is or what Moody’s think of us. Does Moody’s really know how our people are suffering?

The amount of resources put into the community for the mentally ill is simply atrocious. In other provinces the allocations to the institutions and to the communities are more valiant. The four health and community services boards developed programs for the areas they serve, mental health is one of these areas, but the budget required for the delivery of these programs was, unfortunately, never put in place.

We see so many home repairs that are needed out there with people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Talk about getting your priorities straight, in St. John’s there are houses boarded up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we gave the hon. lady a minute or so to clue up but it looks like the hon. lady is not trying to clue up, she is continuing to make new points. We do not want to be discourteous to people but we did give the hon. lady time.

MS S. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: No, we just wanted to give you a minute to clue up but you have not been attempting to clue up.

MS S. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) priorities straightened out. There is a waiting list of about 1,000 people to get into homes in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. There are many, many, more on the list for home repairs. There are houses boarded up and these houses overlook walking trails, grassy berm and trees. Where are our priorities, Mr. Speaker? Do the people who on these lists, waiting to get in these homes, really care what our credit rating is?

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 am pleased to get up and speak a little bit on the sub-amendment put forward by my colleague from Baie Verte.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a number of things happen over the past three or four years that really causes some concern to a lot of people in the Province. In particular, over the past couple of weeks some of the bills brought forward before this House. A bill to take $97 million out of the Labrador Transportation Fund; $97 million out of that fund to be replaced over four or five years. That $97 million that is taken out of that fund, Mr. Speaker, will be used to pay down the government’s debt or used for other programs. Basically, it is being robbed from the Labrador Transportation Fund. It is being taken from the Labrador Transportation Fund.

Mr. Speaker, that money was put there for a purpose. It was put there to help pay for the Trans-Labrador Highway. We see some people, including the MP for Labrador, Mr. Lawrence O’Brien, come out and very strongly condemn this government for taking that action. That bill is before the House right now, and that bill will be a bill that we, on this side of the House, will oppose and do everything we can to prevent from going through because of the fact, Mr. Speaker, we believe that it is unfair and unjust for this government to claw back $97 million from the Labrador Transportation Fund. People like Lawrence O’Brien have very strongly condemned that action by government. They say that it is robbing the people of Labrador; taking money out of that fund that we do not know if it is going to get back there or not. It is a promise by government, but we do not know if it is going to get back there or not.

The Minister of Transportation had gone to Ottawa to give a power point presentation that the MP for Labrador says was an embarrassment to this Province.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the hon. member that there was no such thing as a power point presentation, and the hon. member for Labrador was not at the meeting so he does not know what happened at the meeting.

I just want to set the record straight, that there was no power point presentation. There was a proposal to Minister Collenette and the member for Labrador was not at the meeting so he does not know what transpired.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that wise judgement on that.

I will say this: there was probably no power to the presentation, no power to the points in the presentation, but it was a power point presentation according to the minister. It obviously wasn’t very powerful because he did not get anything from his presentation to the minister. I would assume -

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there was one other issue that I brought up in the meeting with Minister Collenette and that was improvements to the airports in Northern Labrador. If you notice, in the media today, we announced half-a-million dollar in improvements in the airstrips in Northern Labrador. That was brought up at the meeting, too. So, there were other issues besides the highways. That was one of the issues I brought up, and Mr. Collenette and I announced today half-a-million dollar improvements in the strips in Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for your wise judgement on that.

Mr. Speaker, again, the minister went to Ottawa looking for money for the highways. Not only did he not get money for the highways but he is robbing $97 million from the Labrador Transportation Fund, money that the people of Labrador -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a final point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for St. John’s South said the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation robbed $97 million from the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. That is not true and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

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

I take from that, that the Minister of Transportation is against what government are doing in taking the $97 million from the Labrador Transportation Fund. Mr. Speaker, if money is given to a Labrador Transportation Fund and then stolen out of the fund, I would call that robbing the Labrador Transportation Fund. Highway robbery is what it is being called in Labrador and throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: If that money is taken from the Labrador Transportation Fund and it is supposed to be put back over the next four or five years, in this Province already governments are not able to meet the demand of roadwork, highway improvement in the Province, and if they are bound by having to replace that fund over four or five years, Mr. Speaker, not only are they going to have to take money that should have gone into road repairs throughout the rest of the Province away from an area in which they already are deficient, they cannot afford to complete all of the roadwork, or put money into the roadwork throughout the Province that is needed on an annual basis - not only are they going to have to pay the Labrador Transportation Fund back, but they are going to have to take it away from much needed funding for roadwork throughout the rest of the Province.

That is the reason we are against what government are doing. We are against government removing $97 million from the Transportation Fund. We have no choice but to oppose that because of the fact that government cannot afford to do the roadwork that is required on an annual basis in this Province to begin with. To replace that $97 million over the course of four or five years, which is what they are promising to do, how are they going to be able to afford that and keep up the level of work that they are currently doing on roadwork throughout the rest of the Province? It cannot be done, Mr. Speaker.

You look at another bill before the House, to borrow $200 million. Mr. Speaker, you look at what government has put forward and stated publicly to the people of this Province in the Throne Speech, in the Budget Speech, in the Estimates, what they call our deficit, our debt, and they are going to borrow another $207 million under Bill 7, I believe.

That is the type of management that the people of this Province want to put an end to. That is the type of management that the people of this Province are tired of. That is the type of management throughout this Province that the people of this Province have seen too much, too often. That is what we are hearing. That is what Beaton Tulk heard in Gander-Grand Falls, and that is what government are going to hear next month in Bonavista North, that the people of this Province want a change. The reason the people of this Province want a change is, they are tired of the same old management, the same old robbing of money wherever they can get it. The $8 million a year that was guaranteed to this Province under the Terms of Union with Canada was taken away, and the money for the coastal ferry fund was taken away, all used up front, and now the people of this Province are faced with a shortfall in those areas.

The deal that Newfoundland made with Ottawa on HST, they received up front money from that. It is all gone. That money was to cover the deficit that was going to be created by making a deal with Ottawa on the HST, but that money is all gone. The countless lawsuits that the provincial government has had to pay out under the Liberal regime, the people of this Province are tired of that type of management. They are tired of the type of management that robs tomorrow’s money, money from future generations, to band-aid their solutions today. That is what the people of this Province are fed up with, Mr. Speaker. That is the reason the people in this Province are looking for a change. The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, said that very loudly and very clearly in Gander-Grand Falls when they defeated Beaton Tulk. The same would have happened in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, but the people there were not voting Liberal; they were voting for John Efford. The reason for that is because John Efford distanced himself from Roger Grimes and from that Administration. John Efford distanced himself from what that government are about to do on Voisey’s Bay, the deal they are about to make on Voisey’s Bay. That is the reason John Efford was successful and Beaton Tulk was not. The reason Beaton Tulk was not successful is because the people of this Province are ready for a change. They are looking for a change, they want a change, and the reason for that is the mismanagement of this Province and this Province’s resources and this Province’s financial situation over the past eleven or twelve years.

We have seen it time and time and time again. People in this Province couldn’t give a hoot about our Gross Domestic Product because what are we talking about? Oil exports. That is what is driving the GDP up, the export of oil from this Province to the international market, but it is not going to cure the problem that rural Newfoundland is facing when they see their population in some places cut in half. Many, many rural communities have lost their young families, their families that have young children, their families that will secure and guarantee a future for those communities. Those communities are not interested in how much oil we export. They are interested in where their next meal is coming from, where their next job is coming from, whether or not their community is going to be there in ten or fifteen years’ time, when they return from Alberta, from working in Fort McMurray, or return from Vancouver or Toronto. They are not worried about how much oil we are exporting. They are worried about whether their Province, their community, is still going to be there when they return.

They are not concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the GDP. What they are concerned about is whether or not we are going to be able to create a job for them right here at home, for them to return to, to bring them back from Fort McMurray. I would be willing to bet that the thousands of people who live in Fort McMurray, who originally came from this Province, if you were to survey them, the vast majority of them would say that, even though they have created roots in Fort McMurray, they are willing to come home, they are willing to pull up their roots in Fort McMurray and come home if there is a job here at home for them. I would say the vast majority of them would say that.

They are not worried about the GDP. They are not worried about how much oil is exported out of Newfoundland’s oil fields. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that we are against nickel or nickel concentrate leaving this Province. We have seen it far too often with our resources. We have seen it far too often. The people of this Province have seen it far too often, where our resources have gone to benefit other provinces of Canada. The people of this Province are saying it is time that our resources benefit us. Our people are saying that it is time that our resources benefit us, give us the full and maximum benefits, give us the processing jobs.

That is why we, on this side of the House, are going to fight to ensure that nickel or nickel concentrate does not leave this Province. That is why we want to see the deal put before the House of Assembly so that we can vote on that and debate that deal before it is signed. Mr. Speaker, there is very little sense in having a signed deal that would not be able to be changed without potential lawsuits going against this provincial government and this Province, the people of this Province, if it were changed.

I am not convinced that every member on that side of the House is prepared to give that deal their rubber stamp because most members on that side of the House have never seen the deal. They have no idea what is in the deal. I would be willing to guess, Mr. Speaker, that most people in Cabinet are not aware of the full details of the pending deal between this Province and Inco.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at it, if you recall, Inco said, back in 1996, that the ore body in Labrador, at Voisey’s Bay, is that wealthy, that rich, that the copper and cobalt alone would pay for the mine, the mill, and the smelter, and the nickel is a bonus. I seem to recall Inco saying that, that the copper and cobalt at Voisey’s Bay would pay for the mine, the mill, and the smelter.

What we are asking for, what the people of the Province are asking for, is that the nickel stay here. Inco are supposed to be getting $100 million or thereabouts from the federal government to put towards the hydromet facility in Argentia, a facility that is going to cost approximately $130 million, from what we are hearing, and they are going to get the vast majority of that from Ottawa. If that is the case then their risk, Inco’s risk on that hydromet facility, is really rather low. They are going to put $130 million into that over a four- or five-year period. They will probably be getting $100 million of that up front.

Madam Speaker, if Inco are going to be getting a large percentage of that money from Ottawa - they are getting the copper and cobalt - they want to take our nickel and send it to Manitoba or Sudbury, to create jobs there.

We are not in favour of our concentrate or our ore leaving this Province to go to Manitoba or to go to Ontario to create jobs there. We are hearing that Sudbury are hoping to create some 300 jobs this year. They are hoping to get the concentrate from Labrador to help do that. They are hoping to do that this year.

We hear that the mayor up in Manitoba, in Thompson, Manitoba, is counting on concentrate from Voisey’s Bay to go to that smelter to keep their people employed. That is what we are hearing. Why should our concentrate, why should our ore, provide jobs in Ontario or in Manitoba? Why should we allow that to happen? That should stay here. That should stay right here for the benefit of the people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we hear about our credit rating being bumped up here. We hear about the credit rating in this Province being bumped up. That does not do much for the forty-odd thousand children who go to school hungry every day. That does not do a heck of a whole lot for the senior citizens who are relying on food banks in growing numbers. It does not do much for the senior citizens who are relying on food banks in growing numbers every year in this Province.

If you read what Moody’s said, it was not because of the wizardry of the Minister of Finance or the great things that are happening from this government that caused our credit rating boost. It wasn’t anything that this government are doing. In fact, Moody’s said they have some strong concerns about what is happening in this Province. It was outside forces, the improved economy in Canada, for the most part, that caused our credit rating to be bumped.

Madam Speaker, when you look at the money that has been wasted by the Liberal regime in this Province over the past decade on things like the Trans City, Atlantic Leasing, the lawsuit on the Cabot Corporation, the lawsuit with Andy Wells, the countless numbers of lawsuits -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: No leave.

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

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to rise tonight and speak for a few minutes and make a few comments on the budget, the motion of non-confidence and the amendment to the motion of non-confidence.

Madam Speaker, I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) sub-amendment.

MR. TAYLOR: The sub-amendment a this point in time, yes. I expect to speak on all of it before the night is over, by the looks of it, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, in starting, I would just like to point out - I will speak about some issues in my district, the District of The Straits & White Bay North. I think that no place in this Province better exemplifies the failure of the fiscal and economic policy of this government than the tip of the Northern Peninsula.

Earlier tonight when our leader spoke about the out-migration that has occurred from this Province over the past five years from 1996-2001, he did not get into the out-migration that took place from 1991-1996, but over the last ten years there has certainly been extensive out-migration. Some of these figures were already stated by the leader, the Member for Humber West. He mentioned Englee, for example, where 16.1 per cent of the population left in the five years from 1996-2001. Roddickton, where 9.1 per cent of the population left; 23.8 per cent left Conche; 8.2 per cent left Flower’s Cove; 23.4 per cent left Boyd Arm, and 15.8 per cent left Main Brook; 8.9 per cent left St. Anthony; 11.5 per cent of the population left St. Lunaire- Griquet, my hometown; 13.1 per cent left Cook’s Harbour, my wife’s hometown; 17 per cent left Raleigh, and 8.9 per cent left Goose Cove. These are just a few of the communities in the District of The Straits & White Bay North that have seen significant out-migration in the five years from 1996-2001.

There is not one community - just in this short list here of some of the communities in this Province. There is no mention, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, of the communities in The Straits area of my district. Not what I would consider The Straits area anyway, the area from Eddies Cove East to Flowers Cove; but Flower’s Cove is mentioned, of course, with 8.2 per cent. But the other communities, Savage Cove in particular, where we have seen programs on CBC television over the past number of years that spoke about the number of people who have left Savage Cove and Bear Cove, that area in particular, and moved on to parts of Alberta for work.

Madam Speaker, they did not leave because the Gross Domestic Product of this Province has gone up so much that it turned everything so rosy. They did not leave because of all these jobs that members opposite are always talking about. They left because of the lack of opportunities on the Northern Peninsula. They left because of an attitude by the provincial government, an attitude by Liberal Administrations in particular over the past fifty years, that this document called the historic coast. It is a proposal for an integrated development on the Great Northern Peninsula. It talks about a proposal for the development of the Gros Morne National Park. If I am not mistaken, it was written in 1970 with the hon. W. R. Callahan who was the minister at the time for the Department of Mines, Agriculture and Resources for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I happened to cross this just last week and I read a little bit of it. There is this one telling paragraph, two telling sentences in this document that exemplifies the problems on the Northern Peninsula and why we have had so much out-migration and why there has been so little in the way of economic development in this area. I will read it, from 1970 in another Liberal Administration that happens to share, in my view, the same view of the Northern Peninsula that this administration shares. It is one paragraph now, it says: The provision of a first-class all-weather highway similarly is necessary to the optimal development of the extract of resources of the region. I will not go on for the rest of the sentence because it just speaks about that. It talks about the better the highway the more economic these operations will be and so on.

In 1970, Madam Speaker, that was the attitude of the provincial government and it is still the attitude of the provincial government today. That is why we see people parading in here on a regular basis from communities like Black Duck Cove, Englee, and St. Anthony because this provincial government and the provincial government in 1970 had the same attitude towards the Northern Peninsula, that it is there to extract resources from. We have seen very little in the way of development down there. That is why the people of Conche have seen 23.8 per cent of their population leave in the past five years. That is why the people of Englee have seen 16 per cent of their population leave in the past five years. That is why there is no work there. That is what the problem is, Madam Speaker.

There has been an absolute failure on the part of this government in economic development on the Northern Peninsula. The reason for it is because they look on it much the same as the government has looked on Labrador over the years, as a place where resources are that can be taken for other parts. Madam Speaker, it is tragic. It is tragic for the people on the Northern Peninsula. It is tragic for the communities. It is tragic for the youth of the area who find themselves, as soon as they get out of Grade 12, having to pack up and move on and not being able to find an opportunity to come back.

Madam Speaker, I will just go on in that vein. Some of my colleagues here tonight talked about the Labrador Transportation Initiatives Fund, and talked about how the South Coast ferry service was taken over by the Province and the cash that was associated with that which was transferred to the Province.

What was not mentioned here tonight - I know it was mentioned in this House before - is how the provincial government took over a number of wharves that were the responsibility of Transport Canada. It was the responsibility of Transport Canada, previously. One of those wharves in particular, Madam Speaker, was the Transport Canada wharf in Englee. At that time, as part of a deal with the federal government, the provincial government - it is my understanding, I am led to believe - received approximately $10 million when they took over ownership, assumed ownership of ten wharves in this Province. Ten million dollars that the provincial government received, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to take over responsibility for a number of wharves in this Province related to ferry and coastal boat operations. One of them was the wharf in Englee. What have we in Englee today? We have a wharf that is falling down. The wharf is falling down and there is no decent place for the fishing boats of Englee and the people from outside Englee who use that port on a regular basis, because it is certainly a very busy port, one of the busiest on the Northern Peninsula, probably the second busiest on the east side of the peninsula and, Madam Speaker, there is no wharf there.

What do we get when we go to the federal government? We get the same thing from the federal government that we see now on the Labrador Transportation Initiatives Fund. We get from the federal government, from the federal minister, the federal MP for the area, Mr. Gerry Byrne, an answer that says: Sorry boys, you got your wharf. You got your wharf when the Province took over ownership of the wharf there. You got a million dollars tied to that wharf. Where did that million dollars go? General revenues. The same thing that the Province wants to do now with the $97 million that they are taking from the Labrador Transportation Initiatives Fund. If we can expect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Rob them again. Another fund, another cash infusion, a one-time payment from the federal government to this provincial government. We see how the people of Englee were wronged by it, just as I expected, just as we fear, and just as many people in Labrador fear that they are going to be the losers as a result of the $97 million being taken from the Labrador Transportation Initiatives Fund. Once that money is taken, Madam Speaker, if it follows the same pattern that we have seen with other types of funding, as I just pointed out with the Englee wharf, with the million dollars that was associated with the Province taking over responsibility for that wharf. We never saw that million dollars go into Englee. We never saw that money go into anywhere in the District of The Straits & White Bay North. It has gone into the general revenues of this Province and the people of Englee, once again, and the people of the Northern Peninsula, once again, are the losers as a result of it.

Madam Speaker, as was spoken about here earlier in the debate, we talked about Bill 7, I believe it is, the borrowing bill I will call it. Bill 7, where the Province, where the provincial government, where the Minister of Finance is looking for authority from this House to borrow $200 million; $93 million of which we know has been identified.

Some time last week, or the week before I believe it was, there were some comments made by the Acting Minister Finance, at the time, that an itemized list will be provided to this House. Of course, Madam Speaker, we all know that the following day the real Minister of Finance hastily called a press conference and said: No, no, that is not correct. We are only looking for authority to borrow.

Madam Speaker, what I would like to know, and what we continue to ask here, our Finance critic asked on a daily basis over the past three weeks: What is this money for? Why does the government want to borrow $200 million when they have only identified $93 million? I know what the people in The Straits & White Bay North are asking, and it is tied of course to this report that I referenced here from 1970. I will read it again: The provision of a first-class all-weather highway similarly is necessary for the optimal development of the extraction of resources of the region, particularly chilled fish, shrimp, scallops and lobsters which must be carried in refrigerated trucks. The better the highway the more economic these operations will be. The economics of the forest and mining industries in the region likewise depend very largely on adequate transportation. A report from 1970, Madam Speaker.

I presented on times over the past number of weeks, and last year again, petitions in this House on behalf of the people of The Straits & White Bay North, the people of Conche, the people of Croque, the people of The Straits area, from Eddies Cove East to Flowers Cove. People in those areas who have to travel over gravel roads on a daily basis to commute to work, to commute to schools and grocery stores, or whatever. Certainly, Madam Speaker, the people in The Straits area have to travel over a road that is twenty-five years old. What the people in this area are asking of this $200 million - because I wonder, is anywhere in that $200 million - the Minister of Transportation proposed that he might live up to a commitment that was made to the people of Conche, for example, in the by-election a little over a year ago where their road would be done within two years. Is there anywhere in that $200 million are they proposing to spend the money that is required to upgrade the twenty-six kilometres and pave the twenty-six kilometres of road from Roddickton to Conche? Is that proposed here anywhere, I would like to know, Madam Speaker? Or do they propose to do the road from Main Brook out to Croque and Grandois? Is that in there? I wonder is that in there?

Maybe when the minister decides to provide an itemized list of what the borrowing bill is for, maybe that will be in there, Madam Speaker. Maybe the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - who I understand visited the District of The Straits & White Bay North back in Easter. He certainly agrees with me, I believe, that a road through The Straits area from Eddies Cove East through to Sandy Cove in particular, is deplorable; it is gone. It is gone because we, on a daily basis, watch loads and loads of shrimp being hauled out of the area while we have a plant in St. Anthony where if the Minister of Fisheries keeps on doing what he has been doing and his government keeps on doing what they have been doing with the fishing industry over the past five or six years, that the plant in St. Anthony, much like the ore that is going to be shipped to Thompson, Manitoba, and Sudbury, Ontario, will not be worth a nickel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a plugged nickel.

MR. TAYLOR: Not a plugged nickel, that’s right.

Madam Speaker, the people in that area are wondering: Is he proposing in that $200 million budget borrowing bill, is the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation proposing to find the money there? Do they propose that some of that would be used to resurface Route 430, the Viking Trail, the road that is the primary access for 30,000 tourists, many of whom are from outside this Province who travel in large RVs, who travel on a daily basis in June, July and August, down over that road to visit the UNESCO World Heritage Site at L’Anse aux Meadows at the end of the road, Madam Speaker? Is that what they propose to do with it?

Some other questions that people ask - I heard the Member for Gander earlier tonight talking about a renal dialysis unit, a study on the possibility of a renal dialysis unit for the people of Gander and area. Madam Speaker, if there can be and if there should be a renal dialysis unit put in Gander, I most certainly agree because the people who depend on renal dialysis in order to continue their life and have some kind of semblance of a normal life - no, I shouldn’t even say that it is a semblance of a normal life, but at least they can carry on - that type of a unit should be made accessible to people in all parts of this Province. I go back to approximately two years ago, I guess it was, when there was an announcement - a similar type of discussion - of two renal dialysis units: one for Clarenville and one for St. Anthony.

MR. SULLIVAN: That was two years ago (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: That was two years ago, the Member for Ferryland said. Two years ago, and what do we have now, Madam Speaker? Luck should have it, fortunately enough, there is one in Clarenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: A year-and-a-half later.

MR. TAYLOR: A year-and-a-half later they got it. What about St. Anthony? What do we have in St. Anthony when it comes to a renal dialysis unit? Nothing. I have to go on a weekly basis - I cannot say on a daily basis because they would be an exaggeration - but I will say to the Minister of Health who is looking on and listening intently, I can tell, to what I am saying here - on a weekly basis I talk to people in my district who are in St. John’s on renal dialysis.

Madam Speaker, I recognize that some people who depend on renal dialysis in order to continue their life cannot use a satellite unit like we would have in St. Anthony. We all recognize that, but what I fail to understand, I guess, and what the people of the district fail to understand, what the people I talk to at the Grenfell Regional Health Services Board fail to understand, what the administrator of Grenfell Regional Health Services fails to understand, what those people fail to understand and what the families of the people who depend on renal dialysis fail to understand, is how, in 2000, there could be a commitment for a renal dialysis unit for St. Anthony hospital to service the people on the tip of the Northern Peninsula, on the Northern Peninsula, Southern Labrador, how there could be a commitment at that time, how there were supposedly, you would think, enough people to justify the establishment of that unit, and two years later we cannot find the people. That is what I would like to know, Madam Speaker.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services. Services.

MR. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I do want to set the record straight because obviously, again, maybe he does not really understand the situation. With regard to the renal dialysis, the service that was committed to the St. Anthony area would only be for people who were medically stable. It was not for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Yes, but you did not make it clear in terms of what you are saying.

Right now, my understanding of the situation in St. Anthony is that the numbers are no longer there at this point in time to sustain that type of service. The commitment is still there at such a time when the numbers are there to support it. That is the reality of it. There are people throughout this Province who have to travel to other centres. The same thing applies in the Stephenville area as does apply in the Clarenville area, that service is only available to people who are medically stable and the hon. gentleman should make that distinction.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. TAYLOR: By leave?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to speak to the sub-amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk about Anchor Point (inaudible).

MR. YOUNG: I would like to talk about Black Duck Cove first, before I talk about Anchor Point.

Actually, one of the things that I would like to talk about is jobs and the lack of jobs on the Northern Peninsula. One of the things that would get you involved in the community affairs on the Northern Peninsula is to see the lack of jobs out there and watch those communities disappear before your eyes. I have seen all the young people leave our communities. They have gone because of a lack of jobs, and I have often wondered why there is a lack of jobs. So many times we have looked and we have seen what we thought was an abundance. We have gone through a cod moratorium and things were rather difficult. Then we saw a great resource come to this Province and we thought we were in an ideal position to take advantage of this great resource.

Out of this, I suppose, one of the places that I have had to go out and I have worked with very closely has been Black Duck Cove. I was fortunate enough to go out there. It was very active and on top of what was happening. They started off in the shrimp industry. The shrimp industry looked very promising, as it would go. In working down this road, we have gone out there and we have seen that it is quite difficult to get a right and proper processor. It is one thing to get someone to come in and sign up, but to have the monies to go out and be able to finance an operation like the shrimp is somewhat difficult. Those people were not always wanting to come in. One of the things that we found out, the ones that did not want to come in were part of FANL and they never looked at Black Duck Cove as a place that they wanted to be.

Out of all the troubles that were out there, to get a processor that was capable of carrying out this operation was the most difficult. Those people were very determined to go out there and stay in their communities because most of the people who are there now are in their fifties. All the young people who can, and are willing to get up and move away to find work, have gone. Those communities are existing on the bare people in their fifties who just have no alternative but to stay and fight for the communities.

In a lot of cases, I have looked at the amount of time that I have spent working with one group of people. It has been what you would consider a considerable amount of time, but it has been certainly a learning experience by getting out there and working with this group of people. I have learned a lot about the fishery through working with them.

Port au Choix has been another plant that is out there that has been into shrimp processing. They were actually the first into shrimp processing. That went back to 1969. I suppose the question is: Why would Port au Choix be the first? Well, Port au Choix would be the first, I suppose, because they were out there on a peninsula that was really out into the Gulf and it was an obvious place to put a shrimp plant. So, because of their location and whatnot, they started processing shrimp.

They had a ground fishery there as well, and the ground fishery licence was the biggest part of their operations, but they were processing shrimp and it continued on and it made all the sense in the world. You would think, when you have gone from 12 million pounds to 120 million pounds, that the place would be overflowing with work, that it would be the ideal place for expansion into this industry, and that Port au Choix would be there ready to take advantage of all the new work in this industry that was there. Unfortunately, it did not happen that way. Actually, to give you an example, in 1998 they had thirty-eight weeks’ work with twenty-four weeks with three shifts going. Now in 2001 we have fallen to twenty weeks’ work with ten weeks on the third shift. For this industry to grow as it has been, and this plant in Port au Choix which was the very first, and they are able to take advantage of all - they have a ready work force; there isn’t a problem - yet they are out there and the hours are declining.

This last year, to go out there, the first shrimp plant that was out in this, - to go out there and have to get make-work for the third shift to qualify for EI tells a big story in that there is something wrong here. There is something very wrong with what is happening with this resource. Anchor Point is another plant that is in the district and they have been out there. Somewhat like Port au Choix, they have been out there. They were the second ones in it because of the location and the fleet that was out there available. It made all the sense for the expansion to go through. In 1998, twenty-eight weeks’ work; in 2001, just eighteen weeks; in 2002 - I don’t know. How long will it take for how many weeks? The trouble is, with this industry, a lot of people have great fear of what this season will bring.

I suppose one of the reasons why those plants are not running is that they have looked at the fleet. The Gulf fleet, which has about fifty-odd boats in it, has only had shrimp since 1992. They have not been able to expand into anything else. The crab fishery and other fisheries of this Province have gone out but the Gulf fleet, because of their location, have been isolated on their own. They have not had the ability to go out and get into other things. Because of the resources that this fleet can land, it has limited the amount of harvesting or the amount of processing that can happen on the Northern Peninsula. I think this has been very unfair, to go out of there, because I have heard many times in the past, the Deputy Premier go out and say, places like the Northern Peninsula have not recovered as they should have. Well, I think the reasons why they have not recovered as they should is because they have not been