May 17, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 28


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to rule on a couple of points of order and privilege that have been raised in the House in recent days.

On April 5, the hon. the Government House Leader rose on a point of order with respect to a comment made by the Leader of the Opposition, and also a point of order generally respecting decorum in the House. The hon. the Government House Leader stated that the Leader of the Opposition had, during Oral Questions on April 5, alleged or suggested, that the hon. the Premier was less than honest with his answers to a question. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, it is unparliamentary to cast aspersions upon another member of the House. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to correct the record in this matter. I want to refer the Leader of the Opposition to page 569 of Hansard, April 5. He may wish to read his remarks, and the remarks of the Government House Leader on page 575, before making a comment for the record.

On another aspect of the point of order raised by the hon. the Government House Leader, he referred to the appropriateness of certain gestures in the House. As I mentioned, after the House resumed following the Easter recess, members should address the Chair when speaking in the House. Decorum in the House would generally be much improved if members following the rules laid down in Erskine May and Beauchesne. That is: members should address the Chair when posing questions or comments to other members, or answering questions, or speaking in debate, and that these comments, questions and answers, should be phrased in the third person.

In the heat of debate, of course, as politicians, we naturally use our hands and bodies to emphasize points. While the movement of hands may be distracting, unless these gestures are, I guess, rude or obscene, then it would be difficult for the Chair to rule such gestures out of order.

As well, on December 14, the hon. the Opposition House Leader rose on a point regarding a ruling the Chair had made on the December 13. The hon. the member was questioning whether the Chair had revisited a ruling previously made. What actually happened was that the Chair was ruling on a point of order raised by the Member for Bay of Islands when ruling there was no point of order. The Member for Cape St. Francis then made some comments, after which the Chair said: There is no point of order.

At that point, the Chair had not heard what the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis had said, which was immediately preceding his statement that there was no point of order. The Chair was simply

reiterating his previous comment. It was only after the point of privilege was raised and taken under advisement that the Chair, upon reviewing Hansard, became aware of the comments of the Member for Cape St. Francis, just before the Chair reiterated that there was no point of order.

To sum up: the Chair, in ruling, after the point of privilege was raised, that the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis had used unparliamentary language, was referring to different and stronger language than when he made the point of order.

On May 10, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy raised a point of order about comments made by the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, concerning school trustees. It appears to the Chair that there is a difference of opinion between the two members about government policy, and a difference of opinion would not establish a prima facie case of breach of privilege, and the Chair so rules.

Again, on May 14, the hon. the Minister of Finance raised a point of order, objecting to the use of a certain word by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition later made a statement clarifying his comments, and the Chair is satisfied that this matter has been dealt with.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, just to response to your first ruling, certainly in this House I do not challenge the Chair's ruling. If there were any remarks made that could be perceived, and you have ruled on that, that cast aspersions on the Premier, I immediately withdraw them.

I will say, based upon your other ruling, however, it appears now that we have to adopt a hands-off approach in questioning the government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to deal with a particular matter. Myself and the Member for Port de Grave met yesterday and today to discuss his particular circumstance and his plans for now and into the future.

Based upon the fact that we have actually been honoured in this particular Legislature -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I could just interrupt the hon. the Premier for a minute, the hon. the Premier is asking leave to deal with a matter. Does the hon. the Premier have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because of the fact that we have been honoured in this particular Legislature to have the Member for Port de Grave here in this House of Assembly for almost seventeen years now, giving exemplary and dedicated service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think that we should, Mr. Speaker, before we begin the proceedings today, cede the floor to the hon. member so that he can make a statement to us in what is likely to be his last day in this particular Legislature.

Before we do that I would like to, on the public record, commend Mr. Efford for his outstanding service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would ask the House to give him leave to address (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few remarks and a few moments to, as the Premier has already said, explain why I am making this statement today and to bring to an end almost seventeen years of work and commitment to the people of the District of Port de Grave and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What I want to do first is just look back on 1985, when I first ran. I remember taking on an opponent from the opposite party, which I call Tory, out in Port de Grave district. They had just opened an arena that year, in 1985, in fact the month of the election, when they told me that I could not win. I said to them, you just made your first mistake when you told me that I can't do something.

I want to reference that very quickly because I want to say something to - some of the members are new in the House and some have been here awhile. When I campaigned on the doors of Port de Grave, I made a commitment, one commitment only: that I would represent the people of Port de Grave district to the best of my ability. I would make them no promises that I could not commit to and not fulfill at that particular time but that I would be there whenever they called upon me. That was the reason why I ran in 1985, and the good people of Port de Grave district elected me by some 900 votes even though they opened a new arena in the district that year. The next election of course speaks for itself, it was 2,800, and the next one was 3,500 and so on.

I remember the first time coming into the House of Assembly. There was a major snowstorm - not many of us left around anymore from 1985, and a couple prior. There was a major snowstorm that day and when I got to the House of Assembly there was a CBC reporter waiting on the steps and he said: How did you get into St. John's this morning? I said: I drove, I have to go to work. That was my first time ever on the steps of Confederation Building. When I came in it was my first time ever in the Confederation Building, so I had a lot to learn. I remember that morning when we had our first caucus meeting, the same morning, and the news media passed in a piece of paper and it went right to the leader. The leader figured he had an interview but he said: Gee John, that's yours. That was my first encounter with the press, and if you had paid me $10,000 after I finished the interview to remember what I said, I could not remember one word except that I had sore knees from letting my knees knock.

That time in the House of Assembly brought me the attention of what government is all about, what the Legislature is all about, and serving on the Opposition for four years gave me a good insight on the government's side but also the role of the Opposition. I really learned a lot when I was on the Opposition. I was aggressive. Brian Peckford called me the Tasmanian Devil. The former Minister of Fisheries, the hon. Tom Rideout, called me the night crawler and so on and on; but it was the thrust back and forth, the learning experience.

Then in 1989, being elected to government and being appointed Minister of Social Services, there is no greater learning and more respect for people than I got during that short term as Minister of Social Services. My only regret is that I did not get another couple of years to fulfill some of the policy changes because we often look down upon people who have less than ourselves and we do not appreciate their circumstances and the way in which they live, but that short term as Minister of Social Services really brought to my attention the value of people, their lives, and how people have less than others.

Then on to the other things, the things that were good and bad. Yes, we all come through some bad stuff and some things that happen that are not always the celebration things but I have no regrets about my past sixteen years, even though I went through some turmoil, some controversial things. I have been in and out of Cabinet. I have had arguments, I have had disagreements but each and every time I had those disagreements and those arguments I had one common goal, to try to improve the lives in a small way, as every individual who comes to this House does, to improve and better the lives of the people of this Province which we all dearly love.

I have said many times. We have more resources in this Province per capita than any other part of this country, and all of us, individually and collectively, has a responsibility to ensure that that happens. That was the reason why I have dearly loved the last sixteen years and would never say that I wish I never would have come. I only wish I could have done more in my term of office of Social Services, Transportation, and Minister of Fisheries for almost two terms.

But all that being said, everything must come to an end and I am not going out of here today with any malice in my mind whatsoever. I am going out with fulfillment, some sadness, some emotion but a lot of satisfaction over the years. I can only say to colleagues on both sides of the House - but particularly on this side of the House because these are the people I have been working with, and some have gone - one of the things that I was taught growing up in the District of Port de Grave is: I would never do anything to hurt you. If I could not do anything good, I would never do anything to hurt anyone, and that is the simple policy under which I tried to operate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I said I wasn't going to do this today, and I am not. I have to bring a little bit of lightness. One of the things they have always had some humor around - and the Minister of Education has made many cracks about my accent. The cartoonist in The Telegram has certainly done that. I don't have an accent, and I don't know where they get that from.

This is one that is in today, "EFFORD'S MID-LIFE CWISIS. (SIGH) I'M BORED...I'M NOT A BACKBENCHER...I'M TOO HIP TO WETIRE...I NEED TO GET OUT OF THE HOUSE!" That is the thing that they see about John Efford for Port de Grave. I don't know where they ever got the idea that I have an accent. I have never had one. It is not true.

Again, the people of Port de Grave district voted me in and I want to say a very, very special thank you to every man, woman and child in Port de Grave district, in the whole district, from Georgetown down to Shearstown and then from Port de Grave down to Bryants Cove, who even today called me and told me whatever I decide to do, they will support me.

All that couldn't take place without my association, the people on my association led by Roland Butler since 1985.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: All the people on the association have worked and have been my strongest allies, and I have said that Roland has been my right hand and my left hand. He has been all of that plus more, and all of the people who have worked on the association in both districts, because you cannot do it by yourself. You are only a part of the team that makes it happen.

To the people around Newfoundland and Labrador, the support that I have there, again I want to say a very, very special thank you to all of those people. They have put up with some of the fights we have had, they have put up with some of the good times, but they have always come through and supported me the best way that any man or any person could deserve.

To the new media, we have been friends over the years. We have had our good time and our bad times, but I believe very strongly that a good relationship and respect for the news media is crucial. They have their job to do, we have our job to do, and I have always respected that. I don't think I have ever refused an interview, nor do I ever intend to. I wouldn't go looking for one, but I have kept a scrapbook since 1985. I have kept everything that has been written about me, worldwide. It is amazing what is written. Even the threats on my life I have in the scrapbook, the letters and all the other things. When I go back through it, it brings back a lot of memories, and I suspect that over the years I will have some time now to do it.

To the civil service, often we don't give them credit. We really don't give them credit enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I have had a good relationship with the civil servants in each of the departments I have had, and all of the other departments that I have been honoured to be able to work with and serve. I tell you, those people work, and they are the backbone of this government or any government, but they never get the credit and the thanks that they deserve. I want, myself personally, and on behalf of everybody else, to say a special thank you.

I am getting to the end of my remarks; I don't want to take up too much time of the House. To the staff who have put up with me: Joan Efford - and I wouldn't hire any family members, as you know - who has been my secretary for a long, long time, to Sonia, Tansy, Roland and Chanda, and all of the other staff I have had over the years, to put up with me, they have to be exemplary people, and they have been doing that.

To the staff I started out with, those who are still with me today, plus those we have added on, that says something for a team working together. I only hope that over the years, I have given you the respect that you deserve. Again, a very special thank you.

Also, of course, my family - my wife is in the audience today. My kids are not here because two are outside Newfoundland and one is out somewhere on the Grand Banks fishing. I have put my job ahead of the whole of my family's responsibilities. My wife has stood there and taken care of the family when I have been out working as an MHA and minister, and going around the Province doing whatever I had to do with my responsibilities. I could not have been successful in politics without that. To her, I want to say a special thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say thank you to all people on both sides of the House of Assembly for the support that I have gotten over the years, and the thrust back and forth. Even though we have had some things to say in the House of Assembly - and I am going to pass this along to a person who I think deserves this, because he was with me in 1985 but he was not on the same side, and I really badgered him, the hon. Rick Woodford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to respond to the hon. Member for Port de Grave, but before I do, John, could you stand and show us your blue suspenders, please?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I was first elected to the House in 1993, but it was not the first time I saw John Efford. I recall, as a university student, sitting in the old gallery upstairs on the ninth floor, coming in and watching Question Period, and listening to former Premier Brian Peckford, and former Minister Ron Dawe, and former Minister Tom Rideout, chant and jeer when Mr. Efford got up in Question Period. Being from Conception Bay North, myself, my roots in Harbour Grace, I always understood him and didn't know why anyone else didn't.

On a serious note, there have been many debates in this Legislature since I have been here with the hon. member and former minister, and my comments today are toward you in a non-partisan way. There can be no mistake when I say, on behalf of our caucus certainly, that the valuable contribution that you personally, and your family, have made to politics in Newfoundland and Labrador, have been invaluable. In my view, rest assured that while you leave here I suspect, as anything comes to an end, it is not easy. I understand that personally myself. Rest assured; and I believe that you have left a legacy in provincial politics, and I emphasize provincial politics because who knows what tomorrow may bring, for any of us for that matter.

It can be said that there were many days here that many a frustration you caused us, especially in a joking way when the roads money would come out to the Works, Services and Transportation Minister, and someone would say: John, is there any money for my district? No money for a Tory district, he would say. But that was in jest. That was not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: No, hold on! While someone said that was true, I know that my colleague from Baie Verte can stand and say it was not.

I am not going to take up much more time in the House. I want to say I applaud the contribution that you have personally made to public life in Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that the place we call home in this Province has been better served and is a lot better as a result of it. I wish you well. Good luck, John.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have a few words to say on the resignation of the Member for Port de Grave. First of all, let me say that it is a tribute to our education system that John Efford was able to go through school and still keep his very unique manner of speech and bring it right through adulthood -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - and that we did not attempt to suppress such a wonderful manner of speech.

I, too, have had differences with the Member for Port de Grave in this House. I think from the very first month I came here, in fact. I have always recognized him as a formidable opponent, a person who is very, very capable of handling any topic in any debate. At one time he was the most partisan of members, but I have noticed of late, he has mellowed a little bit. He even talks to me in public (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Maybe it is a sign of my political maturity. I don't know.

I will say that the Member for Port de Grave has certainly added a great deal to the political life in the Province and he is deservedly popular throughout Newfoundland and Labrador as a politician and as a person. I know the sacrifice he has made for himself, for his family, and I want to acknowledge that on behalf of him and his wife, Madonna, and wish him well for the future. I do not think that we have seen or heard the last of John Efford in political life, or in the life of the Province in general.

I do want to say that the people of this Province do appreciate, despite all of the anti-political comments that are made, the contribution that people such as John Efford have made to politics in the Province, and I want to thank him for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, to conclude, I would like to say thank you, for all hon. members, for putting aside our normal rules; because I believe we all recognize that when we operate in this most non-partisan fashion we sometimes do some of our best work.

It is clear, I think, with the record that John Efford has had as a member and a minister of the Crown in Newfoundland and Labrador, that I do appreciate, and I know he appreciated, the opportunity to be given some time to say and speak, as he did today, about his experiences and why he was here and why we are all here.

I know one thing, Mr. Speaker. I can say to the Leader of the Opposition, that while he might not have had them convinced about his partisanship, he had this crowd over here convinced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Maybe he was doing a few little things with you fellows on the side that we did not know about. Everybody over here was convinced.

I do believe, Mr. Speaker, again, as I say, in terms of congratulating Mr. Efford on his career in politics and in public life, and in his comments today, that they speak for themselves, and that he captured the very essence of what it takes to come here in the first place, and the elements of support that any one of us would need from workers who support us, and family, because otherwise there would nobody standing in this Legislature at any time.

I really do sincerely, as has already been expressed on behalf of everybody, wish John all the very best.

I am with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I do not think that we have seen anywhere close to the last of John Efford, but I know that he is going on to another chapter in his life. We certainly appreciate what he has done in this particular Legislature, in this particular part of his life, and we do sincerely wish him all the best and thank him for his years of service, exemplary service, to Newfoundland and Labrador once again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise and ask for the indulgence of the House.

This is a very significant event. I rise today to extend special birthday greetings to John Pritchett of Gambo. Mr. Pritchett will celebrate his 102nd birthday on June 12.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I attended his 100th birthday and look forward to attending his 102nd birthday.

Mr. Pritchett was born in Gambo on June 12, 1899. Over the duration of his life, he has operated three sawmills: one in Lew Cove, Trinity-Bonavista Bay, and two others in Traverse Brook in the Gambo-Hare Bay Area.

I am pleased to inform the House that Mr. Pritchett continues to be in good health. In fact, he is still able to read without the use of eyeglasses. If you were in Gambo, you would see him walking practically every day to the grocery store to pick up his groceries. He has an excellent memory and his hobbies include reading and listening to the radio. Mr. Pritchett currently resides in Gambo with his son Allan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join with me in wishing Mr. Pritchett a happy 102nd birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of the Department of Education's assessment resource that is part of a comprehensive program of initiatives to improve literacy levels in our Province.

The Department of Education's comprehensive strategy to improve literacy and numeracy, beginning in the primary grades, is well underway.

All four Atlantic Provinces have identified higher literacy levels as one of their goals and through the Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation, the four provinces developed a regional literacy strategy. One outcome of this strategy is a reading assessment resource, which will be implemented by all four provinces in the next school year. We have invested nearly $120,000 in this Province to ensure a copy of this resource is distributed to every school in Newfoundland and Labrador with primary classrooms.

In the resource package, there are eighty high-quality books that have been carefully selected to represent a range of text difficulty. Both fiction and information texts are included. At any time during the year, the teacher, together with the student, can select a text to assess a child's reading progress.

The assessment resource will help teachers address the needs of each child. If the teacher observes particular difficulties for any one student, then appropriate planning can be done to help overcome these difficulties. The hope is that by identifying reading difficulties at an early stage in the child's reading development, we can avoid the continuation of reading problems as they advance through the K-12 system.

Teachers will also be able to use the resource to provide information to parents. Based on the results of the assessment, teachers will be able to suggest appropriate reading selections for parents to read with their children, suggest strategies for helping the children learn to read, and provide appropriate activities for parents to use at home.

Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to our goal of improving this Province's literacy levels and will continue to focus on innovative programs and strategies, such as this one, to accomplish that very important goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of her Ministerial Statement, prior to coming in here today. Certainly, I would join with the minister in anything that would help to improve literacy, especially in the primary grades. It is very, very crucial, at that stage in the student's life, that it be identified and helped.

The resource is going in next year, but a little word of caution, and that is: When we put this on the classroom teachers, let's hope that the time will be there to deal with this sort thing. Because teachers, I say to the minister, certainly have a tremendous workload and, I hope, provision for good in-service, good professional development, good class sizes, so this assessment tool can be used to its utmost. In saying that, again, we hope that this will help in dealing with some of the very obvious problems of literacy in the primary grades.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, commend this initiative by the minister, because reading and understanding what we read is certainly fundamental to all future learning. It has to happen at an early age in order for it to be most effective.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, we have all heard stories about young people who, through their school years and later in post-secondary education, experience difficulties with their studies. It has been directly linked back to the difficulties in learning and comprehending, so it is important, as I said, to any future learning that takes place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that this is an important step. I am sure that steps such as this, while a beginning, will certainly go a long way to helping improve the literacy rate in this Province.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today to inform hon. members about a study being released by my Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. It is called: CareerSearch 2001, Employment Experiences and Earnings of 1998 Graduates.

The study consists of two documents, one based on the experiences of Memorial University of Newfoundland graduates, and one on graduates of the College of the North Atlantic and private colleges.

These reports are the result of surveys conducted with graduates approximately one year after they have completed their programs.

This is a follow-up to a similar study released in 1999, and provides a wealth of detailed program-level information on graduate employment, earnings, out-migration, student loans and length of job search. These reports also describe how graduates evaluated the investment they made in their programs.

Mr. Speaker, the type of labour market information contained in the CareerSearch documents is highly beneficial for a number of different groups and individuals. It will help students and parents with career planning by giving them specific information about the experiences of post-secondary graduates. With the many programs and options that are available to our young people, these publications are sure to be invaluable in making important career decisions.

CareerSearch will be useful for post-secondary educators and career counselors as they assist young people in making informed decisions about options for post-secondary education. It will also help program planners to identify programs that produce graduates with the skills required by employers in today's dynamic labour market.

These documents are being distributed to all high schools across our Province, as well as post-secondary institutions, Human Resource Development Canada offices and Human Resources and Employment offices and Career Information Resource Centres and other agencies with a need for quality labour market information for career planning. In addition, my department is planning an awareness campaign in the fall to foster use of the information in CareerSearch. This document is also available to all interested parties on the government web site at www.gov.nl.ca

Mr. Speaker, these CareerSearch reports highlight government's commitment to accountability in the post-secondary education system in our Province. It also fits in well with my department's focus on young people by providing them with pertinent information on which to base sound decisions. CareerSearch will also help to ensure that students choose the right program for them, so that they do not take on the unnecessary debt with programs that may not be what they are looking for.

While there are many other factors that need to be taken into consideration when young people are planning their futures, I am confident that many youth and others will find CareerSearch 2001 to be an excellent resource on graduate outcomes that will assist with career planning.

I will be pleased to table this document for hon. members in the House of Assembly this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for forwarding me a copy of her statement before the House opened. We, on this side of the House, also believe that career counseling is very important, especially to the many young people who move on to post-secondary education in the Province and find that any level of education they attain comes, many times, with a major debt at the end of the day and, in some cases, they find afterwards, when they move into their work life, that the career they had chosen was not the one for them. Therefore, they end up with a large amount of debt. So, anything that comes forward with any amount of information that will assist those in career counseling, assist students, assist those who help the students, is something that certainly we look forward to seeing also.

Career counseling is something, we believe, that the government needs to take some time to look at. I had an experience in my own district not too long ago where I had a young girl who was on her third course at a college here in St. John's and had a debt that amounted to somewhere around $40,000, and she did not have one employable skill because she did not get to finish the couple of courses that she had half completed. Basically, it came down to a problem of career counseling.

Certainly, we believe that anything that can do that - and hopefully these reports will give us some insight into the concerns that are out there, some insight into the employment opportunities that are out there that people can attain. We hope this research that was carried out and released today will go a long way in improving the career counseling of students here in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These should prove to be useful documents. I know, Mr. Speaker, looking at the Post-Secondary Indicators '99, right after the debacle of the Career Academy demise and the debate in the Province on private versus public post-secondary education, it was interesting to note that despite the high cost, significantly higher debt load and higher default rate on student loads, it was the private college students who had the lowest incomes of people and less success in getting jobs.

I hope that we do not find similar discrepancies through evaluating this measure here, and I would have liked to have seen the comparisons perhaps a little bit closer together so that you could see the public and private programs and the university programs linked together so students could see what the actual outcomes are. I think the official documents (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - so students have the information so that they could make their decisions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Two months ago, on March 1, the government awarded its standing offer agreement for microcomputers. Computer types were divided into eight different categories. Four of them called select, and the other four called standard. A local computer company, Sona Computers Inc., was awarded the standard computers contract. Will the minister confirm that since that contract was awarded, only two of these locally manufactured computers were purchased by government departments, but a significant number of computers have been purchased by government that are American made select products purchased from xwave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a detailed list. I do not go through my department to find out which people purchase goods from this agency or that agency. I do not have a list of computers that were bought, but I can provide it for the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Now the minister should be aware. He received the same e-mail I received with respect to this very important matter that is before government. This government has known for years that American products and Newfoundland and Labrador products have identical specifications, identical technical service certifications and identical warranty requirements. The difference is cost.

Will the minister confirm that had government purchased the locally-made computers instead of the American-made computers it would have achieved average savings of somewhere between 14 per cent and 20 per cent, while at the same time creating more employment for a locally-based company and employing more people in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated to the hon. member, I do not have a list of the computers that were purchased. If there was a requirement that we purchase Newfoundland goods, we would purchase Newfoundland goods if they were cheaper. There is no doubt about it. If they were more expensive then we would have to abide by the Public Tender Act.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, let's see. The minister does not want to get into the issue. Let me ask him this question: Will he confirm that government's average annual expenditures on computers is in the range between $12 million and $20 million, and that purchasing those computers from the U.S. instead of local manufacturers waste somewhere between $1.4 million and $2 million of taxpayers scarce money? Could the minister confirm that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what bracket creep is.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Bracket creep, as the member asked, is a three year old issue, and I would be happy to talk to you about it at another point, if you would like to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question, government maintains a standing offer to facilitate both tendering and purchasing of computers, and there are two types - one, as the member pointed out. There is the select group and the standard, which is a no name group. What has happened, traditionally, is that there is a difference in the price range. I think it ranges from $78 to $128, but it is not only the price. I think the member opposite knows that whenever you are purchasing a piece of equipment the price is a very important component, but there are also other factors that are considered, like quality, for example, servicing and the support components necessary for the computers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, then - she has opened up the question which I asked before. These products which she refers to, American made products and the Newfoundland manufactured products, have the identical specifications, have the identical technical service certifications, and the identical warranty requirements.

Therefore, based on your answer, would you stand to your feet and tell us why, then, if those are equal, all those things you just said were requirements, why is it that you are purchasing goods and services from outside of this Province on a standing offer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe in the recommendations and in the advice that we receive from the people in the public sector who are using these computers, and that is one of the reasons why we have, in some cases, used others instead of the select group. Mr. Speaker, that decision has been based on the input we have received based on the performance as it relates to servicing, also based on some quality issues. People who are using these computers on a day-to-day basis for their work, I think it is only right and just that we should take their advice into consideration so that we are able to provide the best service to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Finance, it is not the quality of locally manufactured goods and services that is the problem. It is not the public service or the bureaucrats that are the problem. You received the same piece of information on this issue as I did.

I would like to ask this question, to either the minister responsible for the Public Tender Act, which is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, or the Minister of Finance: Are the ministers aware, Mr. Speaker, that the local manufacturer that they are overlooking is on the Top 100 list of both Microsoft and Intel for computer systems integrators and value-added resellers in all of North America? Are the ministers aware that this company is selling successfully to the Department of National Defense, Memorial University, Health Canada, and other federal departments and agencies? Are they aware that they just received a $12 million contract from Industry Canada? Why is your own government, in your own advertising with manufacturing right here, made here first, why is it that you are supporting a company with goods and services made outside this Province, when you have the opportunity to support a locally, manufactured right here company, to provide more jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this isn't about blaming the public sector, this is about, I believe, acknowledging and valuing their advice to us. What the member opposite is trying to get across is that somehow we are doing something wrong. Mr. Speaker, we are not doing anything wrong. We have the ability to choose from one or the other. I do not make the decision. My colleague does not make the decision. What we have done is take the advice of our government officials who have come to us and said: The price might be lower but the support costs would be higher. So we try to factor in the whole component.

Mr. Speaker, the practice of using two classes of computers is consistent with the government, as it is with other governments. Mr. Speaker, in this case we have taken the advice of our officials and we have factored in all the components. In no way have we slighted the group to which he refers. In fact, that group has been considered as well as others, and we have taken the advice of the officials who use these computers on a day-to-day basis. I am asking the member opposite: Should we disregard the advice of the public sector and service on this issue? Should we, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the opportunity, unlike the ministers, and ministers for government, to speak to the general manager of this company.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I spoke to him as early as today.

I asked the question that he asked to you, Minster of Finance, and to you minister, and to you Premier, and every other minister, in his letter to all of you: Why is it that our products and services are not acceptable to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador but they are acceptable to the rest of the country?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to indicate to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that I have, at no time, received a letter from the man you are talking about; never received a letter. I have not received a letter. If I had received a letter from this man I would have responded to his letter. I have not received a letter.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I suggest to the minister that he check his e-mail or, as my colleague has said, maybe he is using the wrong computer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask him this question. This is a serious issue. This is a very serious issue. Will the minister now, today, commit to get to the bottom of what is going on here? This company has been in operation for over a decade. They have been dealing with officials of government for over a decade. They are a sound, reputable company with a comparable product, equal price, equal service, equal warranty. The only thing that is not equal is the treatment that you are giving them.

Will you provide a commitment today, minister, that before Tuesday rings around you will get to the bottom of this and what has gone on here? Won't you admit today that there is something terribly wrong when government is paying anywhere from 14 per cent to 20 per cent more for products than it has to? Is that something that concerns the minister or is this Province so (inaudible) with money -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - that we do not have to be concerned about this at all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, what we will commit to do is continue to respect the views of the public service, continue to make decisions based on compromise, and actually take their advice on what they believe is the best machine for the work that they do. That is what we will commit to do and continue to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: This issue is about supporting where price is equal, where a warranty is equal, where certifications are equal or all things are equal, supporting a locally based company. Now, in your own government's advertising you talk about supporting, Manufactured Right Here. I would like to ask the minister again: Will she, right here, or will the Minister of Finance right here, commit to do an investigation on this matter and report back to the House or to the people of the Province on what has happened?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we will commit to do what we know is in the best interest of our public sector. We have said time and time again that government is doing, in this case, what other governments right across the country are doing. What we are doing is taking their advice. It is within our own guidelines. We are doing what is appropriate. We have done it traditionally, and we will take their advice based on what they believe is the best quality, the best service, and the best support for the machines that they use in their day-to-day work in serving the people of this Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the government has that kind of money maybe I can point out a couple of examples where some compassion can be shown.

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister what action his department is taking to collect monies that he deems repayable because of overpayments by social services in the past? Is he guided by a statute of limitations or some compassion in trying to collect those outstanding financial accounts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. Indeed, from time to time it does come to our attention that there have been situations where there have been overpayment and at those points in time our department and my officials, as it is incumbent upon us as stewards of the treasury and the tax dollars of the people of this Province, take whatever action we deem necessary to try to recover where possible.

The hon. member seems to suggest in his statement that we are out on some sort of a witch hunt and really out to do in or in somehow adversely affect the people of the Province. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you, and to the people of this House, that what we doing is being responsible stewards and trying to deal responsibly with an issue that is there. We just cannot ignore it. We have to try to move where we can to recover what is owing to the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that government departments make every effort possible to collect or retrieve monies that they deem payable to the public treasury. I understand that people must be responsible, the minister's department being no exception.

I ask the minister: Is he showing any degree of compassion and understanding in disallowing the renewal of driver's licences to senior citizens in this Province who live on the basic seniors' allowance, denying them their licence renewal for monies that were needed to provide for basic necessities who had to obtain funding through social services in excess of ten years ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, I think it is really unfortunate. I really find it somewhat discouraging. I am disappointed with the antics of the hon. member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not about how you feel, boy. It is what you are doing to them. That is what it is all about!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, again, as I indicated to the hon. members opposite some days ago, if they don't start to begin listening then they - I don't know what they bother to ask questions because they certainly are not interested in the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member, if there are cases there that he is aware of, individual cases - and obviously he seems to be alluding here today in his question that there is an individual case that he is aware of - then I would say to him, as I said to all hon. members, bring them to my attention. I will certainly look into it, but I am certainly not in a position here in this House, neither am I prepared to speak to individual cases here in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, final supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is not aware of policies within his own department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: An example minister: Are you showing any compassion and understanding by refusing to allow a driver's licence to be issued to a senior widow whose husband has been deceased for over ten years? She has now been told that the money accessed by her husband, through your department, must be paid by her before her driver's licence can be issued this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would say what we are witnessing here today, and the people in this House and the people of this Province, is an all-time low on behalf of the Opposition in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think it is despicable that we would be raising this sort of issue in the House. If the hon. member knows of an instance like this, I am disappointed and discouraged that he would not bring it to my attention and think that he could not work with me on behalf of a constituent in his district.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education. Accessability within the school system is a very important -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I met recently with the provincial Parents Network for Equal Rights in Education. They have numerous issues relating to the education of children, with learning, emotional and physical disabilities. Don't think that they have had a proper opportunity or structure to communicate those concerns to the minister and to have them addressed. Will the minister look at the consultative and advisory structures in the Department of Education, and make sure there is an adequate process for consulting directly with these groups?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have done just that. In fact, we have put in place an advisory committee which consists of representation from all of the advocacy groups, as well as all of the stakeholders in education. This is the first time this has ever happened. In fact, I put the process in place because I wanted to ensure that there was an avenue for parents with children with challenging needs to have input into the decisions that are made by the department. To the best of my knowledge, this is working very well. I checked with my deputy who is chairing this committee. The meetings are being held on a regular basis. I understand that they, in fact, are looking at having them four times a year. Unfortunately, some groups have chosen not to participate and have decided not to get involved with the committee.

This is an avenue for them. The agenda is not decided by the Department of Education. It is decided by the participants of the advisory committee, where they can bring forward agenda items and can have their issues addressed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I know these groups have had the opportunity to sit with other interest groups on the minister's advisory council but they have withdrawn from that council because they feel their particular concerns are being lost amongst all the other issues that are brought to the council. These parents represent a special population of children with unique needs.

I ask the minister: Will you make provision to allow this group, certainly other groups and individuals, easier access to her department so she can listen directly to the needs of these parents and their children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, access is never a question when it comes to accessing people within my department, or the minister. Let me say that this committee was put in place to do just that, to provide access for these parents. I have to say that the majority of the membership of the committee are in fact parents of children with challenging needs. To suggest that there is not the opportunity, or that their concerns are being lost, surprises me, because clearly, parents are still involved with this advisory group. They are there and I am sure they would never allow the concerns of other parents with children with disabilities, not to be heard. So I am really disappointed to hear this, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, other than the two groups that have chosen to withdraw, the committee is working very well. Again, it goes back to every member on that committee having an opportunity to decide on the agenda, and to ensure that the needs and concerns of children with challenging needs are heard and brought to the intention of the department and to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I say to the minister, these parents certainly have great concerns about accessibility to school buildings, and especially within school buildings. For example, will the minister consider appointing a representative - perhaps from this group - to the school construction committee so that their concerns can be heard when plans are being developed for new school construction and renovations to other schools? This sort of thing is what they want direct access to. They want a direct voice in what is happening in regard to accessibility in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, accessibility is a very important issue and I can appreciate that. What we will ensure is that the advisory committee that is in place has every input that they need to have in terms of school construction and ensuring that the schools are accessible. In fact, every school that is being built today is accessible. We know that there are schools out there that are not. We have to look at that and see what we need to do to try and respond to the needs and concerns of our children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and concerns the export of bulk water. In 1993, the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States said, in a joint statement, that unless water, in any form, has entered into commerce and become a good or product, it is not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement, including the NAFTA; and that nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use, or to begin exporting water in any form. Will the Premier acknowledge that the obvious and compelling corollary to that statement is that if this Province and this country exports bulk water, as the Premier advances, that it will come therefore under the NAFTA agreement and become a good or trade? This is not a spin. This, in fact, is a proper reading of the NAFTA agreement and that statement by Canada and the United States. Will the Premier acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I will not acknowledge that. I recognize that is the position of the New Democratic Party. I recognize it is a position of certain lobby groups and interest groups within the country. In Newfoundland and Labrador, if he would think back, we did have constitutional experts and consultants who visited this Province and stated to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is not the conclusion that should be drawn from that statement, and the exact opposite is true.

Mr. Speaker, what we have said and what we have committed to in Newfoundland and Labrador is that we will gather all of the information with respect to the legal aspects, the trade aspects, the financial aspects and the environmental aspects. When we are in a position to make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can have a full discussion with factual information, instead of the kind of spin that the hon. member just put on it, then we will have the debate in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The spin was put on by this government, as well, when they joined in the National Accord and brought legislation to this House, urged by the then Minister of Environment, to ban the export of bulk water.

Will the Premier respond to the questions placed on the Order Paper by me, next week, and start his process of public discussion by tabling any legal opinions that he has, any documents that he has, any interpretations that he has, on the floor of this House? If he cannot do it this afternoon, to make them public early next week so that we can all look at what (inaudible) and make our own opinions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is exactly the full intention of this government: to have all of the relevant and necessary information available to every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian who has an interest in the issue so that they can be fully informed, we can all be fully informed, and nobody can put a particular spin on a very important issue. It will be dealt with on the basis of fact, 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.

My questions today are for the Minister of Work, Services and Transportation. Last year, there were many concerns raised about the Apollo on the run now between St. Barbe and Blanc-Sablon. On May 2, I was surprised to listen to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair when she blamed the federal government for not stepping up to the plate as far as the costs for Blanc-Sablon.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for the minister to tell the House today, and to tell his colleague and set her straight, that in fact your department was told that if there were more expenses incurred with the Blanc-Sablon docking facility, that your government, the government of this Province, would be responsible for those costs. Is that right, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that the hon. member asked this specific question because I just did a tour of the Labrador Coast and talked to a lot of the people in a lot of the communities along the Labrador Coast. Wherever I went in Labrador, in the communities on the Labrador Coast, people were coming up to me and saying: Isn't that a fantastic job that you have done on the ferry, the great ferry that we have running between Blanc-Sablon and St. Barbe. So, no, there is no problem with that particular ferry and we are pleased with the performance of that ferry. There are some improvements to be made to the Blanc-Sablon terminal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Labour.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to present to this House two reports: one entitled, the Workplace Health Safety and Compensation Review Division Annual Report; and the other one, the 2000 Annual Report of the Workplace Health Safety and Compensation Commission.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the 1999-2000 Annual Report of the Pippy Park Commission.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the Report of Public Tender Act Exemptions for April, 2001.

MR. REID: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of privilege.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of some remarks made in questions to me by the Member for Ferryland yesterday, my integrity seems to have been called into question outside the House of Assembly. In his question, he made a couple of points. One was relating to the fact that I did something for the people of Twillingate, the Twillingate fish plant, that I did not do for the people of Bay Bulls and the Bay Bulls fish plant. The other was that the request to transfer the licence from Bay Bulls to Baie Verte had not been advertised.

AN HON. MEMBER: Baie Verte?

MR. REID: To Baie Verte - had not been advertised.

Mr. Speaker, on those two issues, the member opposite certainly misled the House. The fact of the matter is, I could not do much for the community of Bay Bulls with regard to the licence when the licence was transferred back in 1999.

The other point, the point that it was not advertised, well, Mr. Speaker, I will table two of the newspaper ads that were advertised at the time: one in The Western Star and one in The Telegram.

Mr. Speaker, because there seems to be some kind of debate out there that I transferred that licence in February of this year, I would like to also table a letter dated June 18, 1999, when that licence was transferred to Baie Verte.

I would also like to table, Mr. Speaker, copies of the licences for 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of privilege.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, it is not a point of privilege on statements made outside the House, but I would like to clarify a few points, Mr. Speaker.

Number one, I never did say when it was transferred. I never made no reference whatsoever. Number two, I said it was done after the previous minister gave a commitment that it would not be done without consultation. I said, a licence was allowed to remain in Twillingate and the one in Bay Bulls would allowed to be transferred. I made no reference to the current minister in any way to affect his credibility whatsoever, and the public record of my statements will clearly show that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is speaking to the point of privilege. I will allow him one more submission.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did say in the House yesterday that the request for transfer was not advertised. It was. He also made reference to the fact that I did not do something for Bay Bulls. That licence was gone three years prior to the time that I took office, so there was not much that I could do with that licence at that time. It had already gone to Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear the hon. the Opposition House Leader, and then the Chair will reserve the -

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to set the record straight. I did not say it was not advertised, in this House or anywhere else. I asked him: Where was it advertised? It was not done after the previous minister gave a commitment. It was not advertised. It was moved after the commitment, without this being done. I am fully aware it was advertised previous to that, but not after the commitment.

I would like to ask: Where did they advertise it since the commitment? I have yet to see it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will just take the point raised by the hon. minister under advisement and report back to the House.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am presented a petition signed by nearly 300 residents of Cow Head on the Northern Peninsula. I would like to read the prayer of the petition in its proper form.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in the legislative session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Cow Head.

WHEREAS the people of Cow Head are concerned about the future of their community; and

WHEREAS the people in the area are desperate for jobs and local efforts to create jobs are being ignored by government agencies; and

WHEREAS the people in the community are concerned by government neglect and inaction;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate action to ensure the survival of the community by developing a plan to create employment opportunities in Cow Head.

And as duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, once again the people of the Northern Peninsula are crying for help. They do not understand why the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has turned its back on them. The community of Cow Head was once a prosperous town. The waters of the shores were rich with cod. Yes, the cod has been replaced with other species but Cow Head has not been allowed to adapt to the new environment.

Mr. Speaker, today Cow Head has only about half the population it did just a few short years ago. In Cow Head today you do not see many young families. The population is an aging population. For Cow Head to be in this situation you would think that the waters that wash its shores were deplete of resources that once made it prosperous, but this is not the case. The waters are full of other species of fish, other than cod. Yet residents of Cow Head must sit idly by and watch the only hope they have of securing their future being trucked away.

Mr. Speaker, the government is managing the fishery in such a way that it leaves the fish merchants with more control than they ever had, and these merchants seize the opportunity to shape the fishing industry to best serve themselves. Who had input when core plants became policy or when there was a deadline to get a shrimp processing license? Was it government's policy at the time to protect the interest of communities like Cow Head or did they deliberately exclude communities like Cow Head?

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Cow Head are asking to be considered. Unemployment in Cow Head is at a crisis level. People are desperate for jobs. Mr. Speaker, what the people of Cow Head would like to know is, will government come to their aid and develop a plan to create employment in this economically depressed community?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents of the Bauline Line area and the general area of Bauline itself.

The prayer of the petition is as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in legislative session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Bauline Line.

WHEREAS the 5.2 kilometers of Bauline Line which is in deplorable condition; and

WHEREAS the residents have been waiting patiently for pavement and upgrading for over twenty years; and

WHEREAS the condition of the road is a safety issue for school buses traveling over this section of road;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate action to upgrade this section of road to what taxpayers can reasonably expect to be available to them and to include in this year's capital works budget the required amount of money to pave this 5.2 kilometers of the Bauline Line.

As in duty bound, you petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this section of road, this 5.2 kilometers of dirt road off the Bauline Line, is really, generally speaking, a part of the Marine Drive, and a lot of tourists travel that area. Now the buses that normally do the tours refuse to go over that section of road. It is muddy, it is soft in the spring of the year, potholes all year long, Mr. Speaker. Over the past number of years, Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to get them to even grade the road, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, to grade the road, to put a bit of gravel on it. They go down now with a grader, Mr. Speaker, and they are grading over rocks.

This morning I had a meeting with the -

MR. REID: What are you talking about?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Bauline Line, 5 kilometres of dirt road, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. REID: Is there anyone living on it?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, there are people living on it.

I had a meeting with the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island; myself and people who live on that road, Mr. Speaker. Technically speaking, they do not live on the road. They live next to the road, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. Myself and the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island met this morning with a number of residents, and they have been trying for years and years.

I have a number of letters that have been sent to the various ministers; from the assistant Principal of Beachy Cove Elementary School, from the bus drivers, from the operators of the postal vehicles, people living on the road - this goes back to 1986. I have copies of letters here back to 1986, and before, and every minister since that time has been contacted by those individuals. Personally, I have had meetings with every minister since 1993 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, back to the Moores government.

Since 1993, when I was elected, I have had meetings with every Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It has always been top of the list in my district to get it done but it never got any funding. This past year I managed to squeeze out of the government a couple of hundred-thousand dollars for Torbay Road, the intersection of Marine Drive, Convent Lane, and Torbay Road around Holy Trinity School. It is much appreciated, but, Mr. Speaker, these people living on that road - and there are a good number of them let me tell you that. It is long overdue to have this work done. I think when you look at the budget that is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave? Just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker.

I don't want to speak for the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, but he supports this and we are trying to get this work done as soon as we possibly can. I understand there is going to be about a kilometre of pavement done this year, but there is 5.2 kilometres overall. We need that and the people in the area deserve it.

Thank you.

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

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

I have a petition today on the bulk export of water from the Province. The prayer of the petition reads:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province.

Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside the Province.

It is time that we demand our full and fair share!

With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefits through jobs, spin-off from secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

The people who signed this particular petition, Mr. Speaker, generally tend to be from the St. John's area, Pouch Cove, and so on. Again, we are receiving petitions on a daily basis on this. We presented a number of petitions back in 1999. Again, we are presenting petitions. I would guess that the number of signatures on petitions, combined with those that were presented in 1999, must be into the thousands.

The people who signed this petition are asking that government give very serious consideration to making sure that the processing on any water that is to be exported from this Province be done in the Province; that we do not export any bulk water from the Province. They are asking that we look at the fact that employment is one of the major concerns in this Province. The people of this Province want jobs. We don't want to be exporting our bright young people out of the Province when we export raw resources. They want to see our resources processed in this Province to give maximum benefit to the people of this Province.

We have to ensure that we start looking at our resources with keeping in mind that we have to provide maximum benefit to the people of the Province, the people who own the resources. We have seen resources such as Churchill Falls, our fishery, mining, as well as many other resources go out to be processed in Sept-Iles, Quebec; to be processed elsewhere. Our offshore oil is being refined elsewhere. It is time that we demand that our resources be processed in this Province to ensure that the people of this Province have a place to stay, a place to live, a place to raise their families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Debate.

We are on the amendment to Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak on the non-confidence motion and with respect to the Budget. Is there any wonder we have no confidence in this Budget when we have the St. John's Health Care Corporation looking to cut $10 million from the Budget, after all the cuts over the past few years, and hundreds of beds being taken out of the system? What did we see last weekend in the paper? When they are looking for $10 million in health care, we saw an ad in the paper - I would say costing probably $1,500, a full-page ad by this Administration. Here is what it says: Government's work plan of action. What it should say: Liberal policies, which have been adopted, most of them, from the Blue Book.

AN HON. MEMBER: And in action.

MR. J. BYRNE: And in action.

Really, when we are spending taxpayers dollars, $1,500, to promote Liberal propaganda in the Province of Newfoundland Labrador when we are looking for $10 million in health care. It is shameful! Is there any wonder the people of the Province have no confidence in this Administration?

Yesterday, we had a private member's motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I did not have an opportunity to speak on it. It was defeated. We even had Division and, of course, all the government members stood in their places and supported it. I suppose I can understand that, to a certain extent, but it is shameful.

The Budget for 2001 talks about a small deficit of $30 million. Last year they talked about a deficit of $20 million-odd. We told them at the time, this side of the House, that the deficit was going to be over $200 million. They did not believe us. We were laughed at. We were ridiculed for telling the truth and showing the real figures. What do we see? Last fall the Auditor-General - who is an independent auditor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who can say what she wants, not like this piece of legislation now, the Ombudsman that they were bringing to the House of Assembly here yesterday, the Citizens' Representative, which is properly referred to by the Leader of the Opposition as the Cabinet representative.

I was listening to the Minister of Justice on the radio this morning with Mr. Brown. He was actually saying that the Leader of the Opposition should read this piece of legislation, that he was misleading the public. Mr. Speaker, if the truth be known, what we were saying was right on, just like what we were saying last year with respect to the Budget and in agreement with by the Auditor General. The government's own auditor came out in their financial statements and showed it to be a $225 million deficit. This year they are talking about $30 million.

Mr. Speaker, you will find out in the near future, when the Auditor-General does her report again this year, and the auditor for the Province does the report, the deficit, in reality, will be over $300 million. Why is this happening? When you look at the book, the document itself, it shows this figure of $30 million-odd, but what they are not including in the Budget, of course, is the debt of the hospital boards; they are including the debt of the school boards; they are not including the debt of the municipalities that they are ultimately responsible for. That is what is going on with this document. It is not a true picture of what is happening in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to the finances.

I have a lot to say on this bill or this non-confidence motion. We are saying we have no confidence in the government, basically. When the government and the Premier of the Province stands in his place and actually makes the statement: What we are going to do is use all your policies - talking about the Opposition - and by the time the next election rolls around there will be no more for you to use. Now, talk about a government that is void of ideas. I can understand why the Member for Port de Grave has finally decided to leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has lost confidence.

MR. J. BYRNE: He has lost confidence. I think the Member for Port de Grave has lost confidence in this administration, Mr. Speaker. Now I had my differences with the Member for Port de Grave over the past eight years, there is no doubt about that. He took his smacks at me in this House of Assembly and I took my smacks at him. I have to say, we did not agree on much but I have to give him credit for one thing - and the Member for Port de Grave should listen to this - something that I agreed to - pardon?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, if I forced him out - thank you for that, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

As I said, we had our differences but I have to give him credit, in the face of a lot of opposition a number of years ago - although he did not do much for my district when he was Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - but in the face of all the opposition he decided - and he was the man, he ultimately decided. I went to public meetings, public hearings on the Outer Ring Road, and he did. He was the man who made the ultimate decision to put the Outer Ring Road through, and I give him credit for that. I give him full credit for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did that for himself. That was to get a quick run into Confederation Building (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Some people are saying that the Member for Port de Grave approved the Outer Ring Road so that he would have a quicker access to the Confederation Building. Now, that could be very well too; and the bypass and what have you. I wish him well, Mr. Speaker, in his future endeavors; not too well in some.

With respect to this non-confidence motion, Mr. Speaker. This government and the Premier of this Province, the current Premier of the Province, have made statements and talked about flip-flops.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, the flip-flops are just unreal.

As I said yesterday, he reminds me of when you pull a trout up through the ice, you pitch it on the ice and it is flipping and flopping all around the ice, Mr. Speaker. You don't know where it is going to land, what it is going to do, what direction it is going to take or what direction it is going to point to; that is what this government is all about. I can get into our policy manual here and if I have time I probably will, and refer to some of the flip-flops. Some of the major ones of course - the policy reversals are Voisey's Bay, Mr. Speaker. How can we have confidence in this Administration? How could the people of the Province have confidence in this Administration? Is there any wonder that we would be putting forward a motion of non-confidence in this Budget when we have a government that really have no direction, have no clue? They are like a squid in the water, we don't know what direction it is going in. That is what is happening with this Administration; and their tentacles are everywhere. I do not want to go in that direction because their tentacles are pretty far reaching when it comes to helping their buddies or their friends, I can guarantee you that.

Now, Voisey's Bay nickel, the previous administration, the Premier of the Province, the former Premier, and the former, former Premier, made statements that there would be no nickel leave this Province or no ore leave this Province for refining. I think they campaigned on it in the last election, if I do recall. I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying in the 1996 election that they were going to build a smelter in every community in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a smelter on wheels, that is what they were talking about, Mr. Speaker, and it is still not built. We still don't have a deal, but they campaigned on no ore leaving this Province. The current Premier, Mr. Speaker, in his debate for the leadership of the party and to eventually become the Premier, the Minister of Finance at the time, I think it was - was he Minister of Finance or Minister of Mines and Energy, Paul Dicks, at the time? - anyway, the Member for Humber West, and the Member for Port de Grave pointed to him and said: Listen, you have plans for ore to leave this Province. He skated around it, but now we know the real truth. We know what is going on in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a major flip-flop.

Now, the current Premier, when he was playing hockey and stuff like that, Mr. Speaker, I think he had a nickname of Popsy. The current Premier had a nickname of Popsy, playing hockey or something, right? Well, I think the name should be changed to Flopsy Popsy. That is what should happen with this Premier. He is not maintaining the mandate of why they were elected, what they went to the people on. We are going to hold them to that. You can mark that down.

Also, the exporting of bulk water. Now, again, we see a major flopsy on that one. The legislation went through this House last year, or the year before, and everybody on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, everyone, voted in favour of not exporting bulk water out of this Province, and it was for a good reason; for a very good reason. Even the Member for Bellevue voted in favour of that legislation. Even the Member for Bellevue, who is promoting Gisborne Lake, voted in favour of that legislation. Now, all of a sudden, he is up in the air. What is wrong, if we are going to be exporting water out of this Province, that it is exported out in bottles? Look at the jobs that can be created.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Jack, Grand Le Pierre have a boil order.

MR. J. BYRNE: No?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for St. John's South says that a community that is very near Gisborne Lake, which is promoting the exporting of bulk water, has a boil order?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: A boil order, Mr. Speaker, and we are talking about exporting water out of this Province in bulk. We are talking containerships of water gone, but the big factor here is - and it does not seem to be sinking into the government and the members on the other side of the House - if we ship bulk water out of this Province, it is my understanding that with respect to the clawback and the equalization - now, with respect to certain products, export - oil, for example - I think the government takes back eighty cents on the dollar; seventy-five to eighty cents on the dollar. Now, with water, that is not included at this point in time. If they create a new product, it is quite possible, in the new categorization, Mr. Speaker, that the bulk water could be shipped out of here and for every dollar that we make -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lose eighty cents?

MR. J. BYRNE: They will take the whole lot of it, every cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Everything?

MR. J. BYRNE: Every cent, Mr. Speaker. So, what is the point?

Now, if they had any foresight - we have the foresight on this side. The Member for St. John's South saw it a number of years ago. The former, former Premier had it when we beat it into his head and he finally accepted it, the foresight, with respect to: Let's create jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you remember the shaking of hands and the standing ovation?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, the standing ovation and all that coming forward when the legislation went through the House, Mr. Speaker. Let's create the jobs. Let's create the secondary processing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why do we have to, again, ship it out of here in bulk, get rid of it, create no jobs in the Province? It is shameful, as a matter of fact. It is shameful.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is only going into the ocean, isn't it? Is it only going into the ocean?

MR. J. BYRNE: The answer they gave is that it is only flowing into the ocean anyway.

Get this now: Why, Mr. Speaker, would we ship it out of here, ship it to some other province, maybe, or ship it to some other country, maybe, and they bottle the water and send back those little half-litre containers and charge us $1.50 for our water?

Now, doesn't it make sense that we would take our water, we would bottle it, send it out of the Province to other provinces, to the rest of the country, to other countries in North America, maybe into Europe or wherever, and then make a few bucks, create a few jobs? That is where it is at -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. BARRETT: How come you don't buy it from a Newfoundland bottler? (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I don't have to buy much water. I have good clean water in my home. I don't have to buy much of it, to be honest with you. But, if I did, I would buy Newfoundland water.

As a matter fact, up in my office, I have a tank of water. Where do you think it came from? It is from Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of computer would you buy? Would you buy an American computer?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I would definitely buy local, no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you were a minister, what would you do?

MR. J. BYRNE: It would be a policy of my department, if I was a minister, to buy local.

Why would we be even considering shipping bulk water out of this Province when we can create maybe hundreds and thousands of jobs?

Now, the members on the other side throw this back across the House: Well, out in B.C. they have twenty-eight bottlers. How much money do they make, I say to the Member for St. John's South?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Twenty-eight thousand.

MR. J. BYRNE: Twenty-eight thousand dollars. Even if it is $28 million, it is pittance, as far as I am concerned.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How many jobs were created?

MR. J. BYRNE: How many jobs were created? Well, they are talking about revenues with respect to royalties. So, how many jobs do they have out there, Mr. Speaker? That argument does not hold up. Maybe, just maybe, they are not doing it right. We see so often in this House of Assembly - I heard, again, the Minister of Justice on this morning talking about his great piece of legislation, The Citizens' Representative, talking about how they do this in Manitoba and some other provinces.

Basically, the first thing that came to my mind was: Do they have any original ideas themselves? Just because some other province is doing it, doesn't mean we have to do the exact thing. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think it does anyway, Mr. Speaker. Now in algebra, two negatives can make a positive but, in reality, I don't think two wrongs can make a right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know.

Now, what other flip-flop do we have? Gas price regulation; now, that is a beaut. We are putting legislation through this House right now - this past week, two weeks, three weeks or whatever the case may be - and members on that side of the House, the former Minister of Energy, the current Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, stood in this House, stood in the scrum area, out in the media, all kinds of reports last year and the year before, and said: It will not work. It is a waste of time to do it.

All of a sudden, bang-o!, it is going through, because he thinks that the people of the Province are going to probably give him a few votes because they think that is a positive thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, what we have been saying - and I don't understand why they have not adopted this policy yet, because when you look at out policy manual for 1999, a lot of our policies have been adopted. Now, we have been saying on this side of the House to give the people a break in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; reduce the taxes. No, cannot do that. I have heard it in the past: We cannot do this, we cannot do that. Where are we getting the money? Maybe I can address that later on with respect to some of the policies.

MR. NOEL: Address it now.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I will tell you what. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Government Services and Lands says, address it now. Here is one point that you can look at, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands: Right now, gas is at eighty-nine cents for the regular, I believe. I remember only a couple of years ago it was probably in the sixty cents bracket. So, how much extra taxes are you taking in? Now there is talk that gas will go to $1 a litre this year. How much extra revenue have they been taking in over the past few years, Mr. Speaker?

MR. NOEL: The gas tax is (inaudible), nothing extra.

MR. J. BYRNE: What? Mr. Speaker, if the gas price goes up, they will get more taxes. That is pretty simple to understand. I know one thing; I am paying more. If I go to the gas pumps, and if it was costing me $35 to fill up but now it costs me $40 or $42, do you mean to tell me they are not getting more taxes?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not care how more. It is still more, and a lot more. If it goes up, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, from sixty cents a litre to $1 a litre, or from eighty cents a litre to $1 a litre, that is 20 per cent. That is a good chunk of money, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going here, my son. I am wound up for at least twenty-four hours, I say to the Deputy Premier, the deputy, deputy, deputy.

MR. SHELLEY: Deputy Dawg.

MR. J. BYRNE: Deputy Dawg.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say this, and I have been wanting to say this for a long while in this House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will be up again, I say, Mr. Speaker. They won't muzzle me.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: I am very pleased today to stand in the House and support the motion of non-confidence as put earlier, and in full support of my colleague from Cape St. Francis. Sometimes members opposite would wonder, Mr. Speaker, why we can support such a motion or how we can really put such a motion to the floor. I think this afternoon it was very evident when we talked to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about computers for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we really want to talk about wasteful events, Mr. Speaker, and a waste of money, we should talk about the Russian boat that we bought and is now in the water down by the St. John's dockyard.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is wrong with her?

MR. FRENCH: We have spent millions on her, I say to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. FRENCH: No! I don't know what you have been reading, partner.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the estimate to complete that Russian ferry is close to $3 million. Shameful! Now that is $5 million, and I don't know what it would have cost us to build a new one at the Marystown shipyard. Maybe before we tripped off to Russia and bought this foolish craft that we now have in the water down by the St. John's dockyard, we should have looked at buying a new vessel.

Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. In actual fact, did we really get the right vessel? There is a rumor going around, Mr. Speaker, that maybe, just maybe, we might have ended up with the wrong boat, we may have ended up with the wrong ship. I don't know if that is true and I don't know if it isn't.

I have to say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, for this money that we have spent, for this money that we have wasted, and I mean the word wasted, Mr. Speaker, where we were supposed to get a vessel which we could redo - we have already spent $2 million on her and we are now going to spend another $3 million. I don't know exactly what we paid for this particular vessel. That is $5 million right now, Mr. Speaker, that we have put into this.

Maybe over a number of years, regardless of the cost, maybe we should have looked at going to the Marystown shipyard and financing the construction of a new vessel so that we could have employed more people on the Burin Peninsula, so we could have increased the workforce at the Marystown shipyard. Now we have a shipyard, Mr. Speaker, which we gave away for a dollar which now owes us $10 million in penalties. I think that is disgraceful. That is what Friede Goldman owes us today, Sir, $10 million. So somebody somewhere got a very, very large freebie, I say to you.

As I said, this vessel that we bought in Russia - my understanding, Mr. Speaker, we had two ships on dry dock over there, two ships of equivalency. One was the sister ship of the other. I now hear rumors, Mr. Speaker, out of the St. John's dockyard. The question being asked to me is: Bob, are we really sure that we bought the right vessel? I said: My goodness, fellows, that can't happen. But the reports that have come in to me: Did we really get the right vessel off the synchrolift when we went to Russia to buy it, Mr. Speaker, or did we not? I say that is disgraceful. Now this is $5 million and, at the end of the day, after spending $5 million, I do not believe that this ship will be ready then to become part of our ferry service in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I stand to be corrected on that, but my sources tell me -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) Tory ferries?

MR. FRENCH: I am sure the Tories might have a few ferries, as I am sure the Liberals might have a few ferries of their own, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I am sure you might have a few ferries of your own, I say to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think we had better stay away from this.

MR. REID: You said, you might have a few. (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I won't get into that, Mr. Speaker. I won't ask the Minister of Fisheries to name some of his.

MR. REID: I didn't say we have any.

MR. FRENCH: I am sure you do.

As well, while I am up today, I would like to offer my congratulations to the Member for Port de Grave who retired. I have sat here since 1996, and I have watched that member in action. At times he could be a very, very partisan member, I would say to the Speaker, especially as it related to his own side of the House, but I give Mr. Efford full marks and full credit for representing his people and, I believe, representing them well.

I remember, some years ago, saying in this House, when the day comes that we forget who sent us here, then that is the day we do not deserve to be here anymore. When we forget the people of this Province who said you and I could come into this Legislature and represent them, the day that we neglect these people is the day that people like you and I, if that day every comes, should not be back here. I mean that, Sir, and I mean it most sincerely.

I am very please today to rise in support of this motion. I heard my colleague earlier sparring with the member opposite, talking about gasoline prices. I am fortunate. I come from an area of the Province that probably has the lowest gasoline prices in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our price in Conception Bay South is usually approximately four cents a litre cheaper than it is anywhere else in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the member opposite, maybe he needs a lesson in gasoline prices. Maybe he needs a lesson in what transpires with gasoline companies in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, because when the day comes, if we ever pass this particular piece of legislation, we are going to find that we will have done absolutely, positively, nothing for our citizens of this Province with the lowering of gasoline prices. To me, it is a shame, it is a farce, and that is exactly what it is going to be.

When a tanker truck can leave St. John's and drive to my area, don't tell me that the gasoline prices are cheaper, if they come into Conception Bay South, when the gasoline is bought in from St. John's.

Gasoline is gasoline. Most times, they have agreements between the oil companions whereby in one part of the world we will buy your gasoline in our tankers, and in other parts of the world you will buy our gasoline in your tankers. I watch that, because not very far from where I live - it is now closed up - there was a place where a certain company used to store gasoline. If you could only sit in my front room window some night and watch the tankers go back and forth, and if you noticed the oil companies that they represented, let me tell you something, it was very rarely that it was one of the oil tankers from the company that owned the facility. It was usually tankers from other facilities that took the gasoline and distributed it around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The problem that we have with our gasoline prices is taxation. Unless we reduce the amount of taxation on gasoline, we are always going to find gasoline prices where they are today. That, to me, again is wrong.

I also have to agree with my colleague that when you look at our health care system, when you go into hospital and look up and see a sign: Anybody coming into the Emergency Room of this hospital can expect a six- hour wait - a six-hour wait. When you hear from your own district, of an eighty-five year old lady who has to lie on a stretcher in emergency from Sunday night until 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, before this lady could be given a bed, that is wrong. It is not morally wrong, as far as I am concerned, it is criminally wrong, to expect an eighty-five year old lady to lie on one of these beds from Sunday to Thursday night and not be admitted to hospital and not be given a room. Mr. Speaker, you or I, or anybody in this Legislature on either side of the House, can walk through the Health Sciences and see the number of beds that are in there that are closed.

While we are going to do that, how in the name of goodness do we expect to look after our sick and our needy people? In the case of the lady I just mentioned, if it had not been for her son and his wife, on Sunday night, deciding that he should go and visit his mother, and they walked into the house and found this lady in cardiac arrest - an eighty-five year old lady - and for her then to go into the Health Sciences, go into emergency, and lie on a bed from Sunday night until 9:00 pm. on Thursday is wrong, dead wrong. Any government that would allow that to happen, there is no wonder that I can support such a motion because I do not believe that is right. I do not believe that the number of beds we closed is right, and we are certainly not given fair hearing to the people of our Province who are sick and certainly very much in need of medical attention.

I watched that, Mr. Speaker, and I watched it for a long time. I remember, ever before I got elected to this place, going into the hospital to visit a member of my family who, at the time, was extremely sick, and being told that they were not permitted to be given a sheet of this - what I would call eggshell. I believe in medical terms at the Health Sciences they refer to it as eggshell. The lady was told she could not get a sheet of this eggshell because she was not dying. Can you imagine that, for medical attention? Then, again, I have to say that is wrong and I have to say: Do not stand over on that side of the House and say: Oh, we put a billion dollars in this year, or we did this or we did that; because, at the end of the day, if we are not going to improve the livelihood of somebody who unfortunately has to go to this place, then in actual fact we have improved absolutely nothing. We have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to help out the sick and the needy of this Province.

As I said, Madam Speaker, I touched on the vessel that we went to Russia to buy, paid goodness only knows how much money, brought it back to this Province, and we are now at a level where the estimate to finish this ship is $2 million to $3 million. We have already spent a little bit better than $2 million on this particular vessel. I am sure, Madam Speaker, if we went into your area, if we went into your district, if we went into Marystown and we talked to Friede Goldman, maybe at the end of the day this government would have been much better off if we had financed the construction of a ferry in the Marystown shipyard. I believe some of this benefit would have come back to the Province in the form of taxes, where we were buying things from businesses in the area, where we were providing employment for people in the area, so that the end of the day we could go back and people would earn a decent wage to support their families. There would have been monies coming from those wages to go pay income tax which again would be a benefit to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, we would have reaped some of this money back into our Province.

When we see these things and, as my colleague from Bonavista spoke about today, the seventy-five year old gentleman who, ten years ago, because of circumstances, was forced to go on social assistance. Ten years later we are now clawing back money from that lady. We are saying: Madam, you cannot drive any more because your husband may have owed us some money before he died.

Is that right? I say, Madam Speaker, it is not right. That again, to me, is morally wrong. We do absolutely nothing to help out the poor soul or the poor individual who finds herself today in such a dilemma to be unfortunate enough to owe this money.

How many members in this House receive phone calls about people who have had their electricity cut? Unfortunately, sometimes, Madam Speaker, it is through no fault of their own. It is because of their working circumstances; it is because of injury. When you get a call from a guidance counselor at a school mentioning a particular family, mentioning a child who is now doing Grade 12, and that child has to do her homework at night by flashlight, you can imagine the strain that it puts on that child and, at the end of the day, how that child is going to end up; because, at the end of the day, she or he are going to have great difficulty passing their exams.

There should be money made available to assist people, and I know these people and I know this gentleman quite well. He is not receiving the wages that he is receiving because he wants to, Madam Speaker. He is receiving the wages because of an injury. He has fallen behind, as a lot of people in our Province do. He has fallen behind and at the end of the day we have absolutely nothing from social services or social assistance or Human Resources or whatever in the name of goodness we want to call it. At the end of the day, we have absolutely nothing in place to help this person, and at the end of the day we have absolutely nothing to help the family, the sons and the daughters who are now in high school, who are trying to get ahead, who are trying to help themselves, so that when they become young adults and move into the world, they at least will have the opportunity to gain an education and will not be stuck as their poor old fathers were, having to go to Human Resources to look for money.

I believe we have lots of those cases in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but what have we done? What has this government done to assist those people? At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, I do not come up with a very good answer. I come up with an answer that says to me, the right thing we should be doing is introducing such a motion, and for me, being an elected representative of this House, I have no other alternative but to vote in support of a non-confidence motion against this particular government.

When we see these wastes of money; when we see all these things transpiring, at the end of the day we should be doing something to put a stop to it. If we are not, Madam Speaker, then there is something wrong; there is something radically wrong.

As I touched on the gentleman whose eighty-five year old mother went into the Health Sciences, if it was for her son and her daughter-in-law, when they went into this lady's home on Sunday night, she would have been dead. She would have been dead. Yet, from Sunday to Thursday at 9:00 p.m., this lady stayed in emergency on a stretcher because there was absolutely no place for that lady to go. The lady used to say to her son, who told me: Don't complain. Don't say anything. The crowd of people working here are doing a good job. They look after me and they treat me right.

I can only agree with that, Madam Speaker. The people who work in these institutions are doing the best they can under very, very trying circumstances.

I will go back to a few years ago when my wife ended up in the hospital, going in and talking to one of the ladies who went around cleaning the rooms in the hospitals, who said to my wife in the bed: You know, Missus, these rooms don't get the cleaning that these rooms deserve, the cleaning that they should be getting. I remember some years ago in this House, raising the point that the Waterford Hospital where people were being timed in cleaning a room by some fool with a stopwatch. I do not know what we are looking for, and I do not know where we are going but at the end of the day, we are certainly not giving the right kind of knowledge, or the right help, or the right information, to the people who have to work in these systems. At the end of the day, again, we really seem to be going absolutely nowhere. So this is why I have absolutely no problem supporting this motion of non-confidence. As my colleague from Cape Francis said earlier, when we look around and see the waste - when we look today at the money that is being spent on computers, and the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition on the amounts of money that we could have saved. How many more beds could that have given us in a hospital in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

I go back again to two doctors who were interviewed - and I do not know how we intend to look at attracting doctors into the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There were two doctors in British Columbia - two specialists, by the way - who had received offers to either practice medicine in New Brunswick or practice medicine in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, they flew from British Columbia to New Brunswick and had an interview. A couple of days later they flew to Newfoundland and had their interview for jobs. The husband is from New Brunswick and his wife is from Newfoundland and Labrador. They wanted to move back to Eastern Canada. The Province of New Brunswick were offering doctors signing bonuses of approximately 40 per cent. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador were offering nothing.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is now up.

MR. FRENCH: By leave, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you.

Madam Speaker, how do we expect to bring these experts into the Province of Newfoundland to help our much needed and very crippling medical system in this Province if we are not going to be able to match or do the things that we should be doing? You can go into clinics in your own part of the Province and you will find doctors who will no longer take patients. I know of one clinic in my area where there are two doctors who will not take any more patients, because they cannot. There are 55,000 charts in this particular area that I am talking about. So how are we going to assist these people? How are we going help these doctors who work long hours? Five, six, and seven days a week some of them. They have a call system on but at night you can no longer go to this clinic. If you call on their recording, the recording tells you that you must come into town. You must come in and go to a local hospital. If we are going to have to come in and go into these local hospitals, I just wonder how it has been.

As I said in the case of the eighty-five year old lady, from Sunday to Thursday night she lay on a stretcher in emergency. Is that good health care, Madam Speaker? I do not think so. As I spoke about somebody in my own family a couple of years ago being at the Health Sciences - it was actually my wife who needed a sheet of eggshell and was told that because you are not dying, Mrs. French, you cannot have this. Now the doctor came in, snapped his fingers and she had it. I guess, Madam Speaker, we would not say or I would not dare say in this House what I said at the Health Sciences. I told the nurse in charge what I would have done -

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you evangelical?

MR. FRENCH: I was better than evangelical, believe you me.

I phoned the assistant administrator at that hospital. I told the assistant administrator at that hospital what room my wife was in and I said: Listen, I don't have any money but tonight I will be at the hospital between 5:00 and 6:00 o'clock. I said: Come up, that so-and-so stuff cannot be any more than $10 a sheet. I will give you $200. I will go home tonight - and my wife will stay here tonight - knowing that we have made life a little bit more comfortable and a little bit more pleasant for people in that surrounding because of the fact that we gave the money. People are now, at least tonight, going to be able to have a decent nights' sleep because they bought this particular kind of stuff so they could have support.

I thank whichever hon. member it was on the other side who gave me leave. I know there was one over there who did not want to give me leave, but that's okay. Whatever goes around, comes around. I am sure I will remember that. Thank you very much, Jack. I thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the members who gave me leave. With that, I will sit down.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to add my voice to the non-confidence motion in the Budget. I better say what I can in the twenty minutes because I just have a feeling that I am not going to get leave on that side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I don't know. There may be one or two over there who might consider giving me some leave. I will give you a hint, someone else who sits in front of me here might be getting up after me.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about Paul?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes.

Madam Speaker, I must say that when the Budget comes down and you look at the amounts, the money that has been spent, you would hope that the money that has been spent has been spent in a way that would make life much better for as many citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador as possible. Obviously, it is not going to cater to everyone's needs. That gets to be almost an impossibility because in this perfect world we know that there are certain needs that are going to be given more priority than others, that there are certain areas that are going to be given more priority than others. When we look at the amount of money that comes down in the provincial Budget we know that we can expect that not all the needs are going to be met.

The experience that I have, of course, as a member in a rural district, is that we have a tremendous amount of needs throughout that particular district which have been crying out to be addressed over the last two years or so that I have been there. It gets frustrating for the people when year after year they see that their particular road is not taken care of, the water situation is not taken care of, the maintenance of the various buildings is not taken care of. It gets very difficult to have confidence if year after year things do not get done. So you can imagine the frustration of many constituents. I guess not only in my district, but in the many districts throughout this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like, if I could, stay in my district because that is what I am most familiar with and have been fortunate, I guess, to be able to have some needs addressed. I think it imperative upon me, as the member for that particular district, that I go through some of the needs of my district that have not been addressed and perhaps will not be addressed in this particular Budget.

Roads; I guess every member in this House, in looking at their particular district, sees roads as a very important link within the district and, of course, outside the district. When you go down to the car dealership and purchase a car - you know as well as I, Madam Speaker, that the cost of that car has absolutely gone through the roof. Cars that you were getting even ten years ago for $10,000, you can't look at them now unless you have $20,000 in your pocket. When you get a call from a constituent and the first words she says is: I got a new car. You say wonderful, because you know it is a situation which indicates that they certainly are moving up in the world or getting to better their lot but, in a second sentence, says: I have the suspension torn off my $20,000 car, or the shocks are gone after two or three months.

Madam Speaker, we know the cost of not only purchasing an automobile, but also maintaining an automobile. It is so important that if people in my constituency, or indeed anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, have vehicles that cost so much, it is most important that we try to protect their investment by ensuring that the taxes they paid on that particular vehicle - I can tell you, when you go down, Madam Speaker, and buy a car for $20,000, you say: Wow! I must have gotten a deal. Then, when you turn around and register that car and you have to pay the taxes on it, it kind of puts you down a notch or two. So, they know that there is a tremendous amount of taxes being taken in with regard to the purchase of the vehicle. Any time that you purchase gas, there is a tax on the gas. Any time that you purchase services - these all add up. The people with these new automobiles, or used automobiles, Madam Speaker, say to themselves: You know, I am paying a tremendous amount of taxes. What am I getting in return? That is the question that is often put to me. Then when they go in to register their car and it is costing them $140 to licence the vehicle per year, they get frustrated, Madam Speaker, and they start to lose confidence in a government that seems to have a good tax base, that seems to have a strong economy, or at least we are told it does. Yet, they look outside their door, Madam Speaker, and they see a dirt road.

It is frustrating to them, it is frustrating to me, and I would imagine it is frustrating to the government members as well, in trying to explain to a constituent that there is something like - I beg the indulgence of Madam Speaker, I just do this in approximations - but from what I am told there is something like $200 million worth of road work that has been applied for in this particular year. When you look at the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and you look at the budget, and you see the minister being given something like $18 million or $20 million to take care of $200 million, Madam Speaker, you have to say to yourself, you know, you would have to be a miracle worker to stretch $20 million into $200 million. So there are going to be parts of this Province that are not going to be looked at with regard to road work.

Unfortunately, I, and I am sure members on this side and members on the other side, have to go back to their constituents, and as we go around the summer now visiting or going to the local events and that, traveling over these roads, as tourists come in, they are going to be talking about roads. I am going to have to, as I have done in the past couple of summers, kind of shrug my shoulders and say: I have tried, I have supported your petitions, I have supported your applications, but you are going to have to put up with that dirt road for yet another year or maybe for another ten years for all I know, Madam Speaker.

So, confidence is a very important part, not only of an individual but of a group. In this particular case, I have to admit, Madam Speaker, the confidence I have in this Budget is not very great. One of the reasons, as I just pointed out, is the fact that I know that of the twenty priorities - again estimating - the twenty-something priorities that I presented to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he has been able to fund two of those priorities, which I am very grateful for, I would say, Madam Speaker, but what do you say to the other twenty-plus? That, I say, is the difficulty.

The second thing, Madam Speaker, has to do with water. There has been a great debate raging back and forth, not only in this House of Assembly between the different parties but throughout this Province and indeed throughout this particular country. I never, I say to you, Madam Speaker, thought I would see the day when in Newfoundland and Labrador there would be concerns about the quality of water. I take great pride in talking with people from other provinces, from other countries, and I take great pride in inviting them into this great Province of ours, this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I invite them in, because I tell them that if you want a pristine environment, this is the Province to visit. But then we hear that there are boil orders on our water supplies. I have, again, a number of communities in my district, my own community included, where there have been boil orders or, as we speak, there are boil orders.

Again, Madam Speaker, it is a matter of trust, because many Newfoundlanders, like myself, would never, ever question the quality of water, because we had, and I use the word again, confidence that the water was clean and that precautions were being taken to make sure that every water system in Newfoundland and Labrador would be monitored so that the people would have confidence that it would be clean; it would be good. But reports of late, certainly, have shattered that confidence. We certainly hope Madam Speaker -

MR. H. HODDER: Eleven minutes gone already.

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, they are going to give me leave over there, I say to my colleague from Waterford Valley, right? Not to worry; I am sure that when I ask for it, I will get it.

To get back to the water situation, I tell you, water is such an important commodity. I remember what I consider now the older members of our community, and other generations, my father's generation included. If my father were to be alive today, he would be, I think, 105 years of age, but in his generation, I can remember helping him dig a well. He got out the water witch, went around - I don't know if it worked or not, but when we dug the well there was water there, so I couldn't say. I can remember, as a young boy, on hot summer days, coming in, lifting up the cover of the well, dipping out that cool water. I could say, Madam Speaker, there was nothing - they say water does not have taste but, let me tell you, I wish, as we were drinking water today, that I could have a glass of that water. As well, the well was a focal point and great precautions were taken to make sure that the water coming into the home was indeed quality water.

Today, unfortunately, I guess with the progress - if you want to call it progress, Madam Speaker - times have changed and we can no longer take for granted that even a well that we would dig on our property would indeed be quality water.

To get back to my district, we do have some great concerns with regard to the water systems, or at least I do. We have some requests in now for the water systems to be certainly upgraded with regard to quality, and I am hoping that the requests can be taken care of so that the constituents, my constituents, my communities, can drink the water with confidence, with absolute confidence. If indeed this Budget, if the money that is allotted - because when it comes to roads, Madam Speaker, we know that, if it is another year, fine - you know what I mean, those are the priorities - but when it comes to water quality, there is no tomorrow. It has to be done today.

I reserve my judgement with regard to whether or not this Budget and the allotment of money will adequately cover not only the supplies in my district but certainly the supplies throughout the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, the will is there. I just hope that the resources are there and that the communities will take advantage of the allotments in order to ensure that the quality of water in the Harbour Main-Whitbourne district is adequately taken care of.

These are not priorities, just points regarding my district that I would like to go down through. A third one, I was just thinking about the number of calls that I get and the requests that I get, and one of the areas has to be dealing with health care. Health care again has to be - what is the old saying, something to the effect that if you do not have your health, you have nothing. You can have money, you can have property, you can have whatever. You can be young or old, in between, or whatever, but I say to you, without your health you literally have nothing. I tell you, when you are in ill-health, you certainly can appreciate what it is to be in health.

Perhaps the best way to look at this, Madam Speaker, is to see some examples. I tell you, and I have to be honest with you, there are people alive in my district because of health care.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) I hope more than a few of them are.

MR. HEDDERSON: There are more than a few alive there, I would hope.

The point that I am making is that, through the dedication of the general physicians - and, I tell you, that is another story in itself. I know in my district, the general practitioners, the GPs, are certainly very busy people, but I am proud of them because they work long hours and they do certainly take care - and also the health professionals. When I say health professionals, Madam Speaker, I speak in a general sense: the nurses, the doctors, the x-ray technicians and so on and so forth. I am also very fortunate in my district to have a health care facility in Whitbourne, to have access to the Carbonear Hospital. As I pointed out to you, Madam Speaker, my constituents are pleased to be close to St. John's with the road system, to Carbonear, to Whitbourne. Like I said, in many cases their lives have been saved because of the efforts of the personnel.

There are some difficulties that have been drawn to my attention too. Just a couple of examples: One was a rather elderly lady who had to be in hospital for a particular reason, and she was in and had her needs addressed. She had her needs addressed, but then came the situation where she was ready to go home or, I should say, ready to be dismissed from the hospital, released, but found, for some reason or another, that she could not return to her home because the home care was not in place, and she could not get a bed in a personal care home or whatever. So, she was stuck literally in the hospital for weeks at a time. She was ready to be released, she was well, but then almost fretting, wondering if she could get back into the home or whatever. Again, Madam Speaker, confidence. I wish I could say that I was confident that this Budget would take care of that kind of a situation, but they continue to happen and that is worrisome.

A second thing: One of my constituents - as a matter of fact, one of my neighbors - a young woman in her mid-forties who, just before Christmas, in preparation for Christmas, got chest pains and was admitted to the hospital and received excellent care. This was the Carbonear Hospital. She went in, and phoned me and said: Everything is okay, Tom, but I need a dye test. This was just during the twelve days of Christmas. Well, I said, that should be no problem because you are in hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I will not go through the twelve days of Christmas, Madam Speaker.

She went in and her family had to celebrate Christmas without her. She was expecting to have the dye test any minute at all, and every day just turned into a disappointment as she waited for that particular test. She had to come into St. John's to get it, to the hospital in here. Supposedly it was on the list. You know, Madam Speaker, she was ready for that dye test and she had to wait from, really, the twelve days of Christmas, one of those twelve days of Christmas, right up until March. She was literally just walking around the hospital down there waiting for that call to go in. She got the call in the early part of March, she went in and had the dye test one day, and I don't know but the same day or the day after a procedure was performed on her immediately with regard to bypasses or whatever the procedure might be. Thank God, she is home now in recovery.

The point that I would like to make, Madam Speaker, is: Will the Budget address these particular needs? We know that there are lineups. I don't dispute that. But being from a rural district I sometimes wonder if she had gone directly into the Health Sciences, she would have had her dye test - I know she would have - much sooner than if she had not gone into the Carbonear hospital. So, that is worrisome. If the Budget can address those types of concerns, Madam Speaker, I will take back this non-confidence motion and look at having confidence in the Budget. I can't do that because even as I speak I still get calls of this nature.

Again, realizing that it is not a perfect world, Madam Speaker, but one in which I hope that when budgets are given out and when budgets are looked at, that we look at priorities, that we go to priorities and we try as best we can to make sure that the basic needs of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador are looked after.

I am wondering about time, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: I have to remind you that the time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: What is this?

MADAM SPEAKER: The time is now up.

MR. HEDDERSON: The time is now up. By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. Sit down, Tom.

MR. HEDDERSON: Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I will sit at this moment and pass it along to my colleague.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I wanted to start off today on this vote of non–confidence in the government by going back to the Speech from the Throne. A few days ago when I was speaking, I mentioned some of the language in the Speech from the Throne and it has been brought up here in the House on a number of occasions. One of the comments made in the Speech from the Throne is that this government would create a greater level of trust, openness and accountability. Madam Speaker, we are waiting to see some evidence of the greater openness, the greater level of trust.

When you talk to people in Newfoundland and Labrador today and ask them how they feel about government, one of the things that they don't say to you is that they are very trusting of government. When you look at some of the actions that have been taken, or have not been taken in some cases - in other words, sins of commission as well as sins of omission - they mention such things as their concerns about the quality of their drinking water.

Madam Speaker, we have had some several months in the House now and we are still waiting for the Minister of Environment to come out and tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador all of the information relative to water quality. Madam Speaker, how can the people of Newfoundland and Labrador today feel very confident when it has taken all this time for this minister and the previous minister to release a report that was done in 1996? When we hear the minister say that they haven't been doing any testing relative to other harmful contaminants -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I just want to point out for the hon. member's information that we have already approved the release of the 1996 report. He knows full well, Madam Speaker, that along with that report there will be all of the most current information that we have on water supplies in this Province and we have released all of the current information that is available.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Point of information not a point of order. Continue.

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

I have succeeded in getting one minister up. We shall at least once in awhile - some of the ministers convince us that they do still have some life left in them over there. They get up and react to what is being said.

Madam Speaker, this government also said in the Throne Speech that they have a plan of action. They have a plan of action, and accomplishments will be published and available to the people for their scrutiny. Madam Speaker, I want to repeat again the comment made in the Speech from the Throne where the government said: "My Government's plan of action and accomplishments will be published..." All I have seen published thus far is an ad in The Telegram that came out last weekend, a full page ad. This was, of course, predicted in the Speech from the Throne when it said: "...plan of action and accomplishments will be published..." So, last weekend we saw this plan of action. The Deputy Premier, who was the only Premier in Newfoundland history to lose two by-elections in a row, lost them both on the same day.

Madam Speaker, I want, at this time, to note the presence in the gallery, if I could, of the Minister of - I am sure all members would want me to do this. I am wondering if we could have the attention of all members for a moment because I am pleased to see in the gallery today the Minister of Health, my good friend Julie Bettney.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Julie, we on this side, want to welcome you to the House. It is so good to see you looking so well. We are pleased that you seen it fitting to come here, and we also extend a welcome to your good husband, Peter, as well.

Getting back to the list of accomplishments. Madam Speaker, last weekend we seen what the government advertised, a full page ad listing out the government's accomplishments. The only thing is, it says here it is published by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador but it really amounts to an ad for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know the Minister of the Environment would like to speak but he will have a turn because we assume that he is going to vote for the government when the vote comes up later on today or some time next week.

Madam Speaker, we on this side have some concerns with the fact that we don't have enough money in health care. We don't have enough money to support the fact that needy people, when they come out of hospital on home care, cannot get their drugs paid for. Madam Speaker, we have so many needs in this Province to support children in our school system. We have all those needs but yet, we can find taxpayers' money to publish an ad like this. I assume that it appeared in most all the other papers in the Province. What a waste of public money when today I have received calls from all over the Province on health issues, on social issues, and the government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: When we see all kinds of requests for money to be spent by the government and then we see these kinds of full page ads. This tells the people of Newfoundland and Labrador where the real priorities are. This tells them how you feel about such things as the questions that my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South, mentioned today. The clawback that occurs years and years later after an over expenditure has occurred in the Department of Human Resources.

Madam Speaker, this certainly does not give us, on this side, any measure of confidence when you see government taking this kind of ad out all across the Province. Likewise, we note - and I have been told - that the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission feels that it is appropriate to take out a $250,000 private booth in Mile One Stadium. Madam Speaker, that $250,000 - or $260,000 someone told me, and someone else said $250,000 - we can find money to put a private booth, from taxpayers' money through the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission, in Mile One Stadium. We can do that -

MR. SULLIVAN: Harvey, (inaudible) get free liquor up there?

MR. H. HODDER: I don't know what they do, but I can tell you that I am told it is going to take $260,000 of government money to buy this private booth down at Mile One Stadium. Madam Speaker, that is the choices.

I note, by the way, that putting a private booth down at the Mile One Stadium did not make the list. It did not make the list.

MR. SULLIVAN: It didn't?

MR. H. HODDER: No, it did not. I say to my colleague, the private booth down at Mile One Stadium for $260,000 did not make the list. So we assume that government considers an expenditure of $260,000 to buy a private booth at Mile One Stadium to be a minor expenditure for this government. What a waste of public money. Here is the way in which government wastes its money. This is what you do when you waste your money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) support the stadium in St. John's because you live in Mount Pearl?

MR. H. HODDER: I am saying that I am delighted Mile One Stadium has been built. I am delighted that it is going there. I am delighted that Mile One Stadium was built. What I am saying is that it is inappropriate to take $260,000 of taxpayers' revenues, taxpayers' money, and go out and buy a private booth, a private box, down at this particular stadium, because obviously

this is about choices.

I heard one of the Premiers standing a little while ago and saying: Government is about choices. Government is about either putting in money to help out the people in this Province who do not have home care prescription drug coverage, who do not have insurance plans, who do not have coverage because of their age or income, the working poor, or saying to these people: You cannot have this kind of care. It is about denying these people that choice, but saying to them we will take out an advertisement in all the papers in the Province and really use taxpayers' money in order to put an ad in that really is a Liberal Party advertisement. That is what I am talking about.

Madam Speaker, I want to go to the very last page of the Speech from the Throne because there is a very telling sentence there. It says: "My Government is committed to doing things differently." How true. I ask my colleagues if they would remember the last page because this was a prediction. We did not realize at the time how much differently things would be done; when we look at things that are done differently.

Yesterday in the House of Assembly we had a private members' resolution. Things are done differently. Certainly they are. The Leader of the Opposition, in our private members' resolution, said that in all three previous occasions when a Premier comes to that office in the process of a mandate, two things happen. One is that there is a commitment to continue the mandate that was given to you in a general election. The other thing that has happened - in the last three times it has happened in Newfoundland and Labrador - is that if there is any variance the new Premier goes, within a hundred days, and seeks a new mandate. However, that has not happened. So, true to his words, this Premier is doing things differently.

When we look at policy reversals, Madam Speaker, the approach of this government differs from the approach that was taken by Premier Tobin on such things as exporting Voisey's Bay nickel, on such things as exporting bulk water, and on such things as gas price regulations. So on the last page of the Speech from the Throne there was a sentence that kind of foretold the future, when it said that this government will do things differently. They sure are, because they have changed their minds on Voisey's Bay, the exporting of nickel, the exporting of bulk water, and on gas price regulation. Also, of course, when we had the takeover of FPI the current Premier said that he was not really interested in taking up the cause and fighting this particular takeover. In fact, in public interviews he said he did not even think it was appropriate for him to ask any questions.

The policy reversals are quite noted. As a matter of fact, this afternoon we heard one of the hon. members say in this House that he intends to resign his seat. Part of the reason, he said, is that he cannot continue to support a government which has changed its mind on such things as export of unprocessed ore from Voisey's Bay. Then we had to ask three or four times this week about whether or not any development agreement on Voisey's Bay would ever get to this House. The Deputy Premier said: Yes, it would. Previous to this week , the current Premier said: No, it would not. This morning on one of the Open Line shows, I am not sure which one it was, the former Member for Labrador West, Perry Canning, was on saying that his understanding was that every clause, every sentence, everything that is agreed to on Voisey's Bay should be thoroughly and completed discussed here in this House. We agree. A development on Churchill Falls, a development on Voisey's Bay, major development projects of that scale should be thoroughly discussed in this House, should be shared with all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to make the right deal. We want to make sure that we are seen to make the right deal because, as the Government House Leader said yesterday, we have to live with it for an awfully long time.

I noticed this morning, when Perry Canning was speaking, he mentioned that the agreement on the Labrador iron ores goes back as far as 1938. The agreements made in 1938 by the Commission of Government are the governing policies which govern the export, or the fact that the pellet plant, for example, was built in Quebec rather than being built in Labrador City area.

We, on this side of the House, have been calling for more discussion on many, many items. Just a few minutes ago, I went upstairs and picked up some of the things that we have made comments on thus far. For example, the whole issue of Marystown Shipyard. We, on this side, have seen the compete dismantling of the entire shipyard in Marystown. It is terrible what has happened to that community. I acknowledge that many of my family members live in that community. It is absolutely terrible what is happening there. There was some degree of hope that Friede Goldman would be able to bring employment to the Burin Peninsula. It has not happened. The government, when they met with a union during the process of negotiation, told them that their assets would be protected. It took many, many months. It took an awfully long time for this government to come to realize that they had to share the precise language of the contract with the unionized people up there. Then we find out that the assets were not protected.

Mr. Speaker, we have great concern about what is happening and what is not happening in the Marystown area, particularly as it relates to Friede Goldman. We, on this side, have tried to bring these issues forward. We have tried to have a public discussion on it. We are really concerned that the assets in Marystown may not be as protected as government would lead us to believe that they are.

We on this side, as well, have expressed great concern about all of the issues surrounding such things as, for example, the current labour situation, during the strike that was held here. We asked many, many questions. My colleague, the Member for Ferryland, has been asking questions in the last few days about whether or not the health boards are going to be able to implement the agreements that have been made by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and commitments made relative to the last negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we noticed that there were directions given to the health care boards in the St. John's area, that they had to find $10 million. They had to cut their budget by $10 million. Yet, we see the kind of extravagant expenditures that I noted this afternoon by way of advertisements, by way of other expenditures of this government. At the same time we are saying to the health care boards: You have to chop expenditures. Now, that seems to me very, very inconsistent.

Other issues that we wanted to bring up were the issues that surround the education system. My colleague, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, has brought up all the issues - including this afternoon - surrounding accessability; school budgets. We saw the Minister of Education in this session try to virtually eliminate the independence of school boards. Now, Mr. Speaker, we view that as totally inappropriate. We are hoping that the minister will be amenable to a couple of amendments as this day progresses, or next week. We do not want a situation where everything in education is controlled in a micro-manner by the Minister of Education. Yet, that would be the effect of the bill that was brought forward in this House this week.

We, on this side, have expressed many, many issues and we could go through a complete list of them. I just want to refer, in closing, because my time is just about up, to the fact that last evening I got a call from a rural doctor -

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The member's time is, in fact, up.

MR. H. HODDER: The member's time is, in fact, up? I will take that question up next week in Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member has leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that when this House resumes sitting on Tuesday, that it not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. and that it not adjourn at 10:30 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: You are shocking flighty today. Stay calm.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I did not even start yet, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands. Hang on. I seek protection of the Chair from the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. SPEAKER: You have whatever protection the Chair has to offer.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand. I find an undesirable tone from the other side of the House here today. I am surprised at that, because they are usually a very jovial crowd; but, then, we are up today speaking on a non-confidence motion on this government. That would, most times, concern the members on the opposite side of the House, and certainly the Member for Bay of Islands. I can understand why he would be concerned. I feel that it is an opportunity here, and it is not very difficult to speak on a non-confidence motion in this government after what we have seen over the past couple of years.

I hope to be able to have the time today. I am sure, at the end of my time, if I do not have all of my issues covered, that I will get leave from the other side of the House to continue, and that they will give me an opportunity to put forward some concerns that we have with this year's Budget. We feel that a lot of the issues and concerns of the people of the Province are not being addressed. Certainly today gives us an opportunity, on this side of the House, to lay out some of these concerns, to put forward some of the issues that have been raised across the Province, some of the issues that have been raised in our own districts with regard to parts of the Budget, and an opportunity to hopefully put forward some creative ideas and solutions, we feel, to address some of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues from this side of the House over the past couple of hours. I am sure we will be raising other issues. We will not get to cover everything in my few minutes but it is an opportunity, I would think, to address some of the concerns that we have.

I will speak in regard to my own district first. In some of the issues within the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, there are some health concerns that are out there in relation to the delivery of health care to my district. There are concerns out there in relation to education. There are issues of concern that have been raised out there in regard to the fishery. Certainly, without a doubt, there have been some major concerns raised in regard to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and their plans for this year. Hopefully, some of these issues will be addressed.

I would like to touch on, if I could, for a moment, health care. As my colleague from Waterford Valley just mentioned, I was very pleased to see the Minister of Health here today. I want to take the opportunity to wish her and her family well over the next several months. Knowing what the family is going through, after having experienced it myself, in my own family last year, I wish her well in the next few weeks.

There are major concerns in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's in regard to health care and delivery. Certainly in the St. Mary's Bay North area of my district, Mr. Speaker, several months ago we thought we had a doctor down there. The people there relative to the council and the health care committee in the area sought funding and received funding from the Eastern Health Care Board to renovate the building in Mount Carmel. It was all set up for a doctor's office. They had a place rented, Mr. Speaker. They had an admin assistant hired. They had renovations made to the building to accommodate the necessary equipment and the people, and, lo and behold, we did not get an opportunity to get a doctor. Now there is, again, somebody in the works, but it is certainly an issue that needs to be dealt with over the next little while. The people in the area thought that this absence of a doctor would be addressed, and we didn't get to do that, Mr. Speaker. Certainly we hope that over the next little while that concern will be addressed.

In relation to down in St. Mary's Bay, we were very successful down in the St. Mary's Bay centre area to get a doctor down there last year, Mr. Speaker, and things seem to be working very well there in relation to the services of the doctor in St. Mary's. Certainly it was welcomed news when we received the doctor down there.

In the Placentia area, at the health care centre, there is certainly a major concern in regard to doctors. We have lost a couple of doctors there over the past several months now, and that is certainly a major issue. There is a possibility of another doctor leaving there in June. The retention of doctors there is a major concern that a lot of people have. The people in the medical profession themselves now are starting to express their concerns with that, Mr. Speaker. Certainly over the next little while it is going to be an issue that is going to have to be brought to the forefront and questions asked and some solutions found, to address that concern that is out there.

There is no doubt about it, and I think everybody here in the House would agree, that health care is a number one issue. If people don't have proper health care it concerns every man, woman and child in the Province. Certainly the delivery of that health care is a number one priority for any government. On this side of the House, we feel a lack of confidence in this government to deliver the proper level of health care. It is certainly one of the issues that brought forward this non-confidence motion today here in the House, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to education issues that are out in my district, there are always concerns with education in the Province. Certainly the District of Placentia & St. Mary's is no different. We have some concerns out there. A couple of weeks ago the minister, in her wisdom, announced some funding for the school in St. Bride's, at Fatima Academy, a much needed improvement there to deliver a better level of education. As I did, back in the House a few weeks ago, I thank the minister for that funding. It will be put to good use, and the students out on the Cape Shore area of my district will certainly benefit from the infusion of around $1 million there this year.

I am on my way this evening, Mr. Speaker, to a meeting in Laval High School in Placentia where the Avalon West School District is holding their monthly meeting tonight. They expect to have a lot of parents, students, staff, concerned citizens, and teachers out in Placentia tonight to that meeting. The school board has given the school council of Laval a fifteen-minute opportunity to present the concerns that they have to the school board, because they have a lot of concerns in relation to funding that needs to be spend on that school to bring it up to par. There are a lot of concerns there, in relation to some of the classrooms that are there, their lavatories and other concerns they have. I brought the issue forward. As a matter of fact, I wrote the minister back in March, I believe it was, and I had a reply back from her in April stating that she did not have a capital works application from the Avalon West School District in relation to Laval High School. I certainly think that there should be one there for the simple reason that the issues, the concerns - last year they had sandbags on the roof of that school.

A few years ago they amalgamated several schools in the area. Freshwater school closed down. There were schools closed down in Dunville. Those schools were closed down and brought together, Mr. Speaker, into two or three schools in the area. People in the area were left with the impression, at that time, that the money saved from the closure of the other schools would be spent on schools in the area to improve the educational facilities there. There is some concern being put forward now by the parents and by the school and the community of Laval that, that money is not being spent in the area where it needs to be spent. The school is over thirty years old. It has had some minor renovations, some new windows and things like that, but there are some major concerns there. The gymnasium there was full of leaks last year. While the leaks have been addressed, the size of the gymnasium - they are looking for some extension to their gymnasium and some other concerns that they have there. There is a room there for the special needs, Mr .Speaker, that I had the opportunity to view myself, a very, very small room that definitely needs to be addressed in some way.

These are some of the concerns there. It is about the only school in my district now, to be honest, that needs some major, major work done. Dunne Academy in St. Mary's received funding the year before last for some major renovations down there. We have a new school on Salmonier Line which was built back, it must be closing on ten years ago now, St. Catherine's Academy which I had the opportunity to visit last night, as a matter of fact. With the renovations now that are going to be carried out on Fatima, it certainly leaves Laval at the end of the line and we hope that some of the concerns that will be raised tonight to the school board will be brought forward to the minister and that in her wisdom, once again, she can find the necessary funds to address this very, very sad situation as it relates to the school at Laval.

Mr. Speaker, that is another issue that concerns us, as representatives here in the House. It certainly concerns me as representative for the people out there. I have called on the school district today, as a matter of fact, to make Laval High School a capital works priority there over the next year, and hopefully that will be done. The minister cannot act on a request, from what I understand, until she receives something from the school board. It seems like the school board are the people who have to take this and move it along on the agenda. Hopefully that will done over the next little while and a capital works proposal to the government in regard to the improvements that are needed at Laval will be forthcoming and we can address that situation, Mr. Speaker.

Another issue that certainly concerns the people in my district is the roads. We have had some major problems, and not only in my district, Placentia & St. Mary's, but we have had some major problems across the Province this year. We had a record snowfall this winter that has caused a lot of concern to the traveling public. We have had, I guess, more damage done to our roads this year than we ever had done in many, many years, Mr. Speaker, and it is certainly something that needs to be worked on. I had some discussions with some people over the past little while and today. I learned yesterday from the minister that he is hoping to visit the district this weekend to have a look at some of the concerns that are down there to be addressed.

Just last week, we had an announcement in the Province where $575,000 was allocated for road improvements in my district, Mr. Speaker. Two hundred and seventy-five thousand of that was carried over from last year. There are still a lot of concerns in the district that need to be addressed. Route 90 down through St. Mary's Bay is a major, major concern. It is a very, very rough road. It has not seen much attention in many, many years, and certainly one that the Irish Loop Development Board, the town councils in St. Mary's and right up through St. Mary's Bay have been advocating, and something that I have written the minister on. When I contacted the minister in January, Route 90 was one of my top priorities. It was my top priority in my district to be addressed. I was very surprised, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that when the money was announced last week that not one of the priorities I had put forward were addressed by the minister. Certainly, it is something that we will be working on over the next little while.

The road down through the Town of Mount Carmel is something that needs some work done. There are some major concerns there. Again, there was a lot of damage over this winter and certainly it is something that we need to look at. Just before we get into the community of North Harbour, there is a lot of road damage there after the winter. Something that also needs to be addressed is the connecting down through North Harbour. Also, on Route 100, which carries from the community of Branch down to Patrick's Cove on the Cape Shore, and including the connecting road to the community of Point Lance, I have never in my lifetime seen the road in such a deplorable condition. It is outrageous, to say the least. It is the road leading to Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve, a major tourist attraction here in the Province, and it is out of hand. It is hard to describe. You would have to witness the road yourself to believe it, Mr. Speaker. That is why I was very pleased when, on April 29, I believe, the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, who were visiting Placentia at the time, at a French Shore's Working conference, took the opportunity to drive down through Route 100, down through the Cape Shore and out through St. Mary's Bay, and they saw first-hand themselves the concerns that were there. They witnessed what people in that area have to drive over on a daily basis.

I understand from the Minister of Tourism that he has contacted the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and certainly told him what he witnessed on April 29, and that this work needs to be carried out. The tourism season is upon us, Mr Speaker, and certainly we need some major work done in this area. With the minister's comments yesterday, that he is going to be visiting the district certainly over the weekend, hopefully, and drive down through, I hope to be able to carry on a conversation that will see improvements next week.

Also, on the past weekend, the Federation of Municipalities held an executive meeting out on the Cape Shore, and Mr. Derm Flynn, the president of the Federation of Municipalities took it upon himself, he informed me this week, to make contact, after I had the opportunity to speak to the group and asked them to put whatever pressure they could upon the government to assist us in getting some road work done. Mr. Flynn has informed me that he has contacted the department and that hopefully with everybody working together on this we will address some of the concerns that are there.

In the Placentia area itself, down through the community of Ship Harbour it certainly needs road work. The community of Ferndale, down through Jerseyside and many other areas in Placentia need road work. While there are priorities there, and I understand the budget for the provincial roads program this year is $22 million, it is hard to address all the concerns that are out there with $22 million, especially, from what I understand, that the minister has over $200 million worth of applications or $200 million worth of proposals on his desk to address some of the concerns that are out there. I understand that he cannot address every concern, but certainly there are some priorities in my district that have to be looked at in order to give some credence to it.

It is a concern that I will continue to raise here in the House, that the people in my district will continue to bring forward, and it is something that I need to have addressed; and hopefully over the next little while we can get to do that. It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that we had $22 million in this year's provincial roads program when in 1989, the last year of the Tory government here in the Province, we had a $40 million capital works program for roads in this Province. That is back now going on twelve or thirteen years ago, and to think now that we are back to about half of what the provincial roads program was in 1989 certainly begs the question of prudent spending on behalf of this government, and one of the reasons we are here today on a non-confidence motion, because there is a fair amount of money being spent.

We listened today in Question Period about the purchase of computers by the government, where they could have saved in excess of a million dollars and they decided not to take that route. There are many other issues that we could get into, such as the Trans City Holdings. There are a lot of places here where government has spent an enormous amount of money and certainly when we look at money for roads, when we look at money for education, when we look at money for health care, we wonder where all of the money comes from; but, if we had some prudent spending on behalf of the government, it is something that I am sure we could have addressed in this area.

Another issue that pertains to my district is something in regard to the fishery. It is a big issue in my district. There was a lot of concern raised in my district over the past several weeks as the FPI situation was working itself out. A lot of fishermen and people are concerned out there about what they believe to be a possibility of a cartel controlling our fishery here in our Province. They are very concerned about pricing, very concerned about quotas, very concerned about marketing, and certainly it is an issue that needs to be dealt with also, and to put some level of confidence - we were very, very surprised, and they ask why we are here on a non-confidence motion.

We were very surprised, when Mr. Risley came knocking on the Premier's door to inform him what their plans were for FPI, that he was informed at that time that the Premier was not overly interested in asking questions, and he was not overly interested in trying to get to the bottom of the situation to see if anything could be done. It is something that really concerns us on this side of the House, and it concerns the people of the Province, that the Premier would explicitly pass on that he was not overly interested in what went on with the fishery in the Province, especially when it comes to a situation as important as what happened to FPI.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on the non-confidence motion. It is certainly something that concerns us all. We hope to have the opportunity here over the next few days to address some more concerns and issues that are in the House.

I, for one, am very pleased to be able to stand here today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. MANNING: I would like to have an opportunity to finish up my few remarks, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: For a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: I thank the Minister of Fisheries for giving me that minute. I will owe you a minute.

There are many issues in my District of Placentia & St. Mary's, but I do not have the time to get into all the issues that affect the people in my district here today. I raised some of the ones that I felt were important, and some of the ones that were of major concern. Hopefully, I will get a chance to address some of the other concerns that I have here. There are always concerns in every district, and the District of Placentia & St. Mary's is no different. I welcome the opportunity to address those concerns today, to be raised here on the non-confidence motion.

The situation with water is another issue that I did not get a chance to speak on, but I am sure I will find time over the next little while to speak on that. A lot of people are concerned in my district, in the Town of Dunville, as an example, in relation to the water situation there, the boil order that is in affect. I have received many calls on that, and hopefully I will get a chance to address some of these issues over the next little while.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 3.

I move that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Motion carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion 3?

All those in favour, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; 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 Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Joyce; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Labour; the hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Environment; Ms Hodder; Ms Jones; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Ross Wiseman.

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

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Harvey Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Manning; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. French; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Young.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-four ‘yeas' and twelve ‘nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to clear up what might be a potential problem. My colleague to my left here, the Minister of Industry, made a motion a little earlier. The motion was that the House not adjourn on Tuesday at 5:30 p.m., and at 10:30 p.m., the hon. member said. It should have been at 10:00 p.m. So I want to make that correction, that the motion is not at 10:30 p.m. but at 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Yes, that is what the Standing Order says, at 10:00 p.m. I want to make that clarification.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Budget Debate as we get to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, on the Budget Debate and the motion of non-confidence.

Before he goes, I want everyone over there to be clear, there was a legitimate and bonafide offer on the Table for members opposite to consider. If we wanted to speak tonight on the motion on non-confidence on the Budget Debate, the offer was simple: Is that you can get out at 5:30 p.m. and you can have it, and we can all be out of here at 5:30 p.m.- we are coming back next week anyway - or, so members on the opposite side are clear, if you want to bring this until 10:00 p.m. that is fine. That is your choice because you are going to end up with the same thing whether you get out at 5:30 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. tonight.

 

I will tell you what the difference is. This is the difference now. This could have been done. We could have been out of here, in terms of an offer. We have to come back next week anyway to finish up the legislation, but the bully from Bonavista North jumped in and entered the picture, Mr. Speaker. Now that is what occurred!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Right off the bat the old sook was back into it again. Do we recall, members, when there were nine of us on Sunday shopping legislation? There was thirty - how many of them? Thirty-seven? Do you recall? Was there thirty-seven on that side? The bullying tactics started that night and we said: Forget it. Thirty-six hours later, the nine of us, with one member over there, kept this place going. Imagine what we can do with sixteen, and two more over there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, there was a legitimate offer on the Table.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you think now that is a threat that is going to worry me, you can sit down.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not a threat. There is no threat at all. That is the way it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: About what? What speech was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: So now on Tuesday - we are not going to get the Budget tonight, definitely not. That is gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not serious.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I am serious. On Tuesday - it is not threats, boy. It is called a parliamentary clock and the amount of time that we have to debate. So, Tuesday we are back.

The other side of the legitimate offer that was made, is that if we are coming back Tuesday, the appropriate amount of time to clear off all the legislation, we would have given leave - and we said it, it was told to the Government House Leader - so that you can do government business on Wednesday so that we can get out of here in a legitimate amount of time. We are not trying to obstructionist whatsoever. We are trying to accommodate the legitimate desire of the Opposition to debate the bills.

The Minister of Justice and I met earlier this afternoon on the Citizens' Representative Act, where I gave him all of our amendments - because I believe they are good ones - for him and his officials to have a look at so that we may be able to reach some consensus, and I believe that we can. Now, that is not obstructionist. If we were to be obstructionist we would have put up more than two speakers on the bill.

MR. SULLIVAN: Only one.

MR. E. BYRNE: On the bill, more than one speaker on the bill. I was the only person in this caucus to speak on Bill 10. The only person.

Now I heard on the radio this week that we are going to filibuster and we would hold it up, but in the interest of accommodating and ensuring that a piece of legislation that we want as much as the government - in the interest of fairness I met with the Minister of Justice and gave him - typed up all of our proposed amendments with an explanatory note on the bottom of all those amendments for him to have a look at.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it was a legitimate conversation.

The point I am trying to make is this: On Wednesday we offered, just recently, Private Members' Day. The only way that Private Members' Day can be converted into a government business day is if it is by leave and unanimous consent. We were prepared to do that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right. My colleague is right when he highlights this for me. He says there are eight bills in committee alone, which we put up only one speaker on -

MR. SULLIVAN: No speakers.

MR. E. BYRNE: No speakers, that is right. No speakers because of the nature of the legislation that we agreed with.

MR. SULLIVAN: And second readings, only one on almost everyone of them.

MR. E. BYRNE: Second readings; the only individuals to speak on most of the second readings, if not all the debate, were the critics. What does that tell you? We did not want to be obstructionist about it. No one can accuse us of doing that, not in this sitting. The record clearly speaks for itself. An legitimate offer was made to the Government House Leader, and enter the Deputy Premier and the next thing, guess what? The backside of the parliament and the legislation is gone. That is fine. That is fair enough. We will take our time on the Budget. We will take the time allotted. When we leave here at 10:00 p.m., guess what?

 

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. E. BYRNE: The deal that was offered to them - they could have left at 5:30 p.m. today. We are going to leave 10:00 p.m. and they are not going to be as far ahead at 10:00 p.m. that they could have been at 5:30 p.m. four-and-one-half hours later. That is the truth of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are not upset over that (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am just saying it for the record. I wanted for the record to be clear. I want it to be clear. I do not want anybody over there, going outside of here, saying that the Opposition is trying to be obstructive and we are filibustering. It is absolutely not true. It was never the case. It is not our intention to do it. Our intention has been to speed along the legislation to the extent that we can while having a legitimate opportunity to debate it. That is it, in a nutshell. The record speaks for itself.

I say to government members, particularly those who might be interested in listening, if you have a problem with staying here until 10:00 p.m. then you talk to your House leader, and talk to the Deputy Premier on it, because at 5:30 p.m. we could have adjourned here tonight, everyone could have gone home for the long weekend, if they so desired, and we could have been back on Tuesday. You could have had the Budget Debate and the non-confidence, it all would have been done, and we could have been back at government business, the legislative agenda, on Tuesday following Question Period, and finish at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday - was the other side of the offer - come back on Wednesday to clue up and out of here; but here is what going to happen because the Deputy Premier put his finger right in the middle of the parliamentary bowl on this session. We are not going to get the Budget tonight. We are going to be here Tuesday and speak on the Budget. A motion has been moved to sit all around the clock on Tuesday, and I can tell you, you can go ahead and sit all around the clock.

MR. TULK: Who said that?

MR. E. BYRNE: Did you just move a motion not to sit beyond Tuesday, or that the House not adjourn beyond 10:00 p.m.?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Because you indicated across the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, yes.

So, if that is the case, that is fine. There will be sixteen of us here on Tuesday. We will sit right up until 3:00 p.m. on Private Members' Day. Then when you request leave we will all go home and go to bed at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday because you are not going to get leave on Private Members' Day to do government business. And guess what? Thursday afternoon we are going to be back here again. That is not ‘sookiness'. There was a legitimate offer on the table. Guess what?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no guarantee that we will not be back the following Monday, all because the Deputy Premier decides to get on the high-horse and be the bully of the Legislature, so fair enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want to be bully, do you?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I don't. I am just telling you like it is.

Mr. Speaker, the non-confidence motion that I have the pleasure to rise on - this Budget that has been presented by the government is $3.82 billion, almost $4 billion. One of the parliamentary privilege's, I guess that we have when we are dealing with a finance bill is that we have the latitude to talk about anything. We have the latitude to discuss any matter, any subject dealing with the Legislature and the compliance of the Legislature.

It is interesting today, Mr. Speaker, that George Bush, President of the United State, announced Thursday a schedule - he has already done it, I believe - to announce a detailed, national energy strategy to battle what the White House calls, he says: The most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. Now this has a tremendous significance to the Province in the possible development of our resources, in the possible development of our oil and gas, in the possible development of the yet-to-be-born industry of offshore natural gas, and the possible development of the Lower Churchill.

It goes on to say that it is expected that he is going to outline his project today - he has already done it - in St. Paul, Minnesota. The plan, he goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, is likely to face a pitched battle in the congress, but it calls on federal agencies to take dramatic steps to reduce regulations on the energy industry, to encourage more output from coal-fired plants. It recommends the construction of more than 1,300 new power plants and calls for new oil and gas exploration; 1,300 new power plants in the next three years. That is incredible! One-and-a-half a day have to be built. In the next three years, power plants alone in the U.S., to be able to accommodate the energy shortage and need, 1,300 in the next three years in the United States; one-and-a-half to one point six a day have to be built, every day.

Mr. Speaker, obviously a plan that takes on such significance and calls for such radical action to address an energy shortage, which is estimated to be, by the way, some 33 per cent to 40 per cent over the next ten year - a significant crisis for America. The question is: How do we position ourselves to take advantage of that situation? We obviously have the potential to develop a huge offshore natural gas industry. Combined with that, if we do it properly, if we take some foresight and look beyond the next ten years and what that can bring, we have the opportunity to develop a significant petrochemical industry, if we wish to. That debate will occur over time, I suppose.

I will say this, the former Member for Humber West, during his leadership bid, talked about, if he was Premier of the Province how he wished - or he outlined in some detail actually, what his plans were to develop the emerging offshore natural gas industry and what he would do as Premier to encourage, to entice, oil companies to put this on their agenda today, not ten years from now.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this radical plan coming out of the United States, directly out of the White House, is so serious a shortage that George Bush, the President of the United States, today issued an executive order to say that any piece of legislation passed from this day forward in the United States must have, or be vetted through, how that will impact on the energy crisis in the United States, both in the negative and in the positive. In the negative sense, legislation that could be passed within the United States must then be vetted through: How will this impact on the energy situation? Will it have an adverse impact on the energy situation? If so, how will it have an adverse impact on the energy situation? They must be detailed on what the plan is to deal with that adverse pact. On the converse side of the agenda, if such legislation has a positive impact on the energy crisis then it must be dealt with in exactly the same manner. It must be detailed, looked at, documented, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, this represents for us a significant opportunity. I dare say the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs probably already has his eye on the opportunity. The question for us is: How do we position ourselves to take advantage of it? As it now stands, for thirty years on the Lower Churchill - and this is post the contract that was signed on the Upper Churchill - we were not in a position to transmit or wheel our power across Quebec, simply because they wouldn't give us the right. The federal government, in its usual treatment of the Province, would not step into a provincial jurisdiction and tell them to do it, even though they had the right to do it. Thirty years post that - you should see all the backbenchers shaking their heads. Can't believe that happened, what you did, boy. They can't believe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not with you.

MR. TULK: Don't worry about that. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am certainly not worried about it. I certainly do not need to worry about it, and I never said you did. All I said was that you should have seen some of your backbenchers nodding their heads, going -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, not at all. They will all be in their seats next week, where they should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It needs to be done, doesn't it? Absolutely.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely, no doubt about it, and I guess the universe will unfold as it should, shouldn't it? That is the only way to look at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You are right on. I can even quote it from more than one. I will say this, too: It will be like the Humber River; it will find its level sooner or later, won't it? No question about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We should take a break once in awhile for something to eat.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, back to the issue.

MR. TULK: I will tell you what. I don't mind giving permission (inaudible). I have seen codfish here.

MR. E. BYRNE: You have eaten codfish here.

MR. TULK: No, not here.

MR. E. BYRNE: Upstairs?

Mr. Speaker, back to the issue. The U.S. energy crisis is so severe, for us to take advantage of the situation right now, we need the federal government to say to Quebec: What you are doing is wrong.

We live in a world where deregulation of the power industry is now a reality. When that happened we felt, generally speaking, for the first time as a Province, that the U.S. energy markets did for us what our own federal government had failed to do for thirty years. They had provided the opportunity because of freewheeling between North and South, that for the first time maybe we could go it alone, pay a reasonable marketing fee to wheel our power across, but Quebec could not charge us too much, so we thought. Enter in the Lower Churchill, Gull Island, Muskrat Falls, development.

Last fall, when the Minister of Mines and Energy at the time, and the chair or president of Hydro admitted in a press conference -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) used to drive that (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: T and T were the buttons, was it?

MR. FITZGERALD: liked you better when (inaudible) trunk load of T and T buttons.

MR. TULK: Do you know something? (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I can understand, because nobody wanted them.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: They would be around for along time. Nobody wore them.

MR. E. BYRNE: Back to what I was saying, the president of Hydro basically said that they could not at this point do a deal on Lower Churchill alone because the Quebec Government, in terms of selling the recall power on their own, wheel it across the Quebec border, get it down to the New England marketplace - Boston, New York, those places - I think it is the Eastern Seaboard energy commission where all of our power ends up. They could not do it because the Province of Quebec and Hydro-Quebec were going to charge such a significant marketing fee that it made it uneconomical; uneconomical for us to do it. Yet again we are in a situation where, as a Province, by no other reason other than the fact of our geographic setting, that we have been held hostage once again.

Now, the Prime Minister of the country, in a recent visit to the U.S. and to the White House - I think he was the first head of state to visit the White House under the new presidency of George Bush - essentially made a commitment that the Government of Canada would do whatever it could or required to help the citizens of the United States in dealing with this energy supply crunch.

One thing it can do, and it can do it if they see fit to do it, if the political will exists to do it, is: they can finally enter into the long-standing dispute of how one province in the eastern part of the country is holding its geographic position over the head of another province and thus disadvantaging us from developing a resource, from reaping the financial benefits, employment benefits, spinoff benefits, et cetera. Now it has done it. It has done it, the Government of Canada. They have done it for other provinces. Certainly, ask Alberta and the Trans-Canadian Pipeline across the country. Alberta crude gets shipped across three provinces, I believe, and into the United States. Not one cent is charged for a wheeling fee, as it goes across its sister provinces, as it travels across provincial corridors. What is the difference? If somebody could explain to me how they justify it -

MR. J. BYRNE: I will tell you the difference.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is the difference?

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That could be it. The Member for Cape St. Francis could be right, that the difference is the number of seats. It makes a good argument for an equal and elected senate, doesn't it, similar to the United States model? That would probably never happen either, because we do not have the number of seats to make it happen.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: (Inaudible) right.

MR. E. BYRNE: Ralph, anybody else in this Legislature could say that but you. Anybody else in this Legislature may be able to stand and say that, but that member has never been wrong, not since I have been here. That member, the Member for Cape St. Francis, he and I were elected together in 1993. He has always stood in this House. Come to think of it, I don't know if this member has ever asked a question that he already did not have the answer to, that he did not have his research done, that he did not hold government accountable. I do not know if that has ever happened. I don't think it has ever happened.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would be forced to agree with that.

MR. E. BYRNE: Wouldn't you?

How this minister can turn around and make that accusation against you is unbelievable.

MR. FITZGERALD: Who said that?

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Environment. He said: Fat chance of Jack ever being right.

Anyway, back to the issue. The chairmanship that he has had under the public accounts - even the former Government House Leader would agree. He has called it the best Public Accounts Committee in Canada under the chairmanship and stewardship -

MR. J. BYRNE: Three years.

MR. E. BYRNE: Three years, under the leadership and stewardship of the Member for Cape St. Francis. My God!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You are not recognized. Sit down.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has finally gotten my goat. I did say that we had the best Public Accounts Committee in Canada, but I did not say, under that chairman down there. I have to correct the record. I did not say that. I am talking about, in terms of structure, in terms of the ability to do things with the Legislature, but not with this guy. As a matter of fact, he has done it severe damage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: I said you finally got my goat. I said that first.

MR. E. BYRNE: How is that?

MR. TULK: Well, you just got to me there. You finally got my goat.

I did say that the Public Accounts Committee was the finest Public Accounts Committee in Canada, but I did not say under his chairmanship. As a matter of fact, I said how structured and informed it was, but I also said, if the hon. gentleman will recall last fall, that under that chairman, it has gone down hill. Now, I just want to correct the record. I am not going to get up anymore. You are not going to get my goat anymore. I have become a very passive young fella, but that is what I said.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Deputy Premier, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot call it the best Public Accounts Committee in Canada and then, by extension, not applaud the chairman who has been chairman of it for three years. You cannot have it both ways, can you? You cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Look -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: But there has to be, I say to the Deputy Premier. There is no other choice. You can say it is the best looking on paper Public Accounts Committee in Canada, but that is not what you said. You said it is the best Public Accounts Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I agree.

Mr. Speaker, back to the issue of how we take advantage of the energy crisis as a Province. I mean, we need some assistance. We do not need a handout, we do not need money, we do not need a five-year agreement, we do not need an infrastructure agreement, we do not need anything. We need one thing, we need for the Government of Canada to recognize finally that it has an obligation to treat all of its citizens in the country equally. What we are asking of them, Mr. Speaker, is no more than they have already provided to the provinces in the western part of our country, particularly Alberta with respect to the Trans-Canadian Pipeline that is used to take another energy resource, transmit it across provincial boundaries, down into the United States, into New York and those places, where it finds the market and where it fetches the best price on world oil crude prices.

I do not know if anyone has ever been down that way and seen it. I have. It is almost like they have a stockbroker sort of situation. A huge, huge operation, tankers of oil coming in through the Eastern Seaboard, in through New York, and hourly updates on what that oil shipment is worth, fetching prices, brokering from one ship to the next, from one customer to the next. It is a fascinating process. Unbelievable!

It is the same with Newfoundland Hydro, and other hydro utilities across the country. They have employees, what they call power-brokers. It is almost like a situation, not necessarily unlike an air traffic controller, that in a room unto itself, out of the public view, the entire North American grid is in perfect view. As power becomes available in Ontario, it is brokered and bought for certain prices, taken from Ontario, zipped as part of the grid. It could be gone to British Columbia, could be gone to Boston, could be gone to Ontario, could be gone to a plant in Alberta, could be down to Maryland, could be in Baltimore, just like that.

That is going on twenty-four hours a day, that brokering of a resource, both in oil, in terms of where it ends up to market. You take our oil, for example, off the Hibernia rig right now. As a rig is filled up, zoom, if there is a requirement to leave at the trans shipment-facility, that occurs, Mr. Speaker. More often than not, it does not. We are living in a world where price are high, demand is high, and, as a result, prices are high. So those who own the resource are in a very unique position. They are making more money than they have ever made.

That is why, for example, HMDC asked this provincial government if they could speed up production. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. World oil prices are going through the roof on the one hand. They are getting the best prices they have received since the early seventies for oil, because the demand is so high, because of the energy crisis in the consumer markets, for the most part, those nations of the world that are consumer orientated. So the provincial government in its wisdom - I am not saying if it is right or wrong, it is known as high-grading in some area, in terms of high-grading a resource - upped production schedule, so they could haul more out in a shorter period of time to collect a bigger windfall of profits. The argument at the time was that while they have done that we get more, as well. We get more for a shorter period of time. It is the same in terms of the long run. The only thing we lose is jobs at the end of the day, in terms of the length of it.

However, all of this is related to how we can and should be able to take advantage of that situation in the U.S. Can you imagine that? It has to be said again for the record: Thirteen-hundred power plants have to be built in the next three years in the United States alone just for them to put a dent into how they meet the pending energy crisis, thirteen hundred power plants. The significance of that is incredible. That is one-and-a-half power plants, on average, per day for the next three years that have to be built. Incredible! It can be done. It is going to be done.

The advantage that George Bush enjoys right now is that he owns both Houses. They have the majority in the Senate. They have the majority in the lower House of the Congress, the first time it has happened in forty years, by the way; thirty-five or forty years. So, he has absolute advantage in pushing forward a Republican agenda, and there is some, I guess -

AN HON. MEMBER: He has some influence on the court.

MR. E. BYRNE: And some influence on the court, very important in the United States. Absolutely! Some influence on the court.

The situation for us presents opportunity, presents significant opportunity, not just in Gull Island and Muskrat Falls which is commonly called the lower part of the Churchill River system, but in development of natural gas. Significant opportunity in the development of natural gas, Mr. Speaker, that this situation presents itself.

Let me just read on, for a moment, to tell you some of the details of the plan. Here are some of the highlights.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, this happened today, I might add.

Making the case for a new long-term energy strategy and for a dramatic emphasis on supply where we can come in, in some small part. Now, bear in mind what the country of the United States needs in terms of the next twenty years in energy, what we could supply - they could eat up all of what we could supply in natural gas, eat up all of what we supply in terms of hydro. They already ate it up in the Upper Churchill, because we give it to Quebec, Quebec sells it to them, and they make the windfall profits on it. But potential of us developing it on the Lower Churchill River system, and natural gas, they could have all of it, and it still would represent probably less than 4 per cent or 5 per cent of what they need. Just imagine the impact it could have on 535,000 of us, in our ability in royalties, revenues? You could almost picture a day, ten or fifteen years from now, where some future Minister of Finance is going to stand in this House and say: The surplus on our current budget - the surplus, Mr. Speaker, they will say at some point, if it is developed properly. We have taken the opportunity to reinvest in health care, to reinvest in education, to reinvest in municipal infrastructure, but after all we have done there are some $600 million or $700 million surplus this year. So what we would like to do with that, and what we have done with it on behalf of the people of the Province, is that we have brought down one-fifth of our debt. It is not unlikely over the next fifteen years, if it is developed properly.

Ralph Klein, last year, because of the demand for oil, because of the surplus, because of what they anticipated and projected to get for every barrel that they sold, and what they actually got, because the market had changed so radically - you can picture the graph - swung up like that so radically, that he paid off over $1 billion worth of debt. He did it the year before. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in five years, because they took time to build an industry and developed it properly, that in four-and-a-half to five years from now, the Province of Alberta will have eliminated their debt. That is incredible! On one resource alone, because the supply for oil and gas is such that the price that they have fetched and the royalty regimes they have put in place, the structures that they have put in place, and what they have reaped from it, they are going to be able to pay off their debt. In the last three years - I wish my colleague was here, he has the tables on it - they have paid off in excess of $5 billion. In excess of $5 billion! In four to five years from now, the Province of Alberta will not have a debt, not one dollar.

Here we are, 535,000 of us, our debt is about $6 billion. If you factor in pension -

MR. NOEL: You are always after us to spend more.

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now. We are always after you to do the right things on the Lower Churchill, and you haven't.

MR. NOEL: We are doing the right thing.

MR. E. BYRNE: What was that? What was right about it? There is not one person on the government side today who can tell me that they have not discussed this amongst themselves either. That deal on the Lower Churchill was for one reason and one reason only. It didn't materialize. The i's weren't dotted and the t's weren't crossed. It was a public relations exercise that came off the rails within nine to ten months, and we were proven correct on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You were the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs when I was asking questions in this House, and you knew that I was right but you could not say so.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I wouldn't have gotten any answers from you. I would have gotten the same answer -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you mean to tell me that you would have gotten up, after just being appointed, just prior to the 1999 election to Cabinet, after waiting in perpetuity until that time to get it, you would have gotten up and given a different answer than the Premier and the Minister of Energy had given?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: My point exactly.

Let me get back to the plan highlights. The report -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) our debt.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am about to tell you. I have already told you.

MR. NOEL: That is $1 million (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One million?

Mr. Speaker, here are some of the plan highlights. Just listen to this: U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 per cent over the next twenty years; 33 per cent. Here is the big one for us: Natural gas consumption in the U.S. will increase 50 per cent in the next three years. You can mark it down. All of a sudden, two years ago, when the oil companies were saying that natural gas is a reality, it will happen ten or fifteen years down the road - not with this plan. It is going to happen a lot sooner than that because it is to the advantage that it does happen. It is profitable now, not ten years from now. Listen to this one. This is George Bush's plan: demand for electricity will increase by 45 per cent. What are the three single biggest potential energy resources that we have? Oil consumption in the U. S. will increase by 33 per cent; we have that. Natural gas consumption will increase by more than 50 per cent - a significant opportunity in front of us - and demand for electricity will increase by 45 per cent; amazing. Over the next twenty years in the U.S. -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Lower Churchill.

MR. E. BYRNE: Towards our needs? Very small. Very big for us though; huge. If you develop both Gull Island and Muskrat Falls you are talking in the vicinity of somewhere between 1,600 and 1,800 megawatts of power, together. Gull Island on its own, in megawatts, is worth about 1,000, I would think. Muskrat Falls, anywhere from 600 to 800, depending on how you develop it, what type of generators you put into it, what type of production in the run of that, all those sorts of things.

MR. J. BYRNE: Was it less than 10 per cent (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, much less than that.

However, the best thing about that form of electricity is that it is pure; it is clean. It is renewable. Unlike natural gas, and oil and gas, it is a fossil fuel. It is non-renewable. At some point it will begin and at some point it will be over. That is the difference with Upper and Lower Churchill. Maybe sixty or seventy years from now our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren - and some of them may be in here - will be able to stand and say: The Upper Churchill contract is finally behind us and we can move on from it. But the demand for it will be ever increasing.

It is very clear, the U.S. is our biggest marketplace. It is our biggest marketplace for our softwood lumber. That is why on softwood lumber alone, the deal that expired threatens this Province much more than anywhere else in many ways. Probably 2,500 to 3,000 jobs at stake in this Province on softwood lumber.

For our fish products - the Member for The Straits & White Bay North knows this probably as good or as better than anybody. The biggest market for our products is the United States, bar none.

Our electricity, while we do not reap the benefits, is still ours. You still get something minute out of it. The biggest marketplace for our electricity, where is it? The Eastern Seaboard, New England, New York, Boston, Maryland, Washington. That is where our power goes. It lights the homes - at the fish market, the Boston Seafood Show. That energy goes into that. They buy blocks of power, as I said.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands: That if there is an opportunity that has ever been presented to us, like now, for us to take advantage of the revenue situation that we have - and the balls that we are juggling in the air from social services needs, to hospital construction, waiting lists, shortage of nurses, paying professionals on a par with Atlantic Canada to keep us competitive, et cetera. This is an opportunity that has presented itself to us. On all fronts, we have all of those resources.

Let me ask this question. Let's go through it. The Province of Nova Scotia stands to gain more than us, even though they have less resources than us. Do you know why? Because they have not been held hostage by a sister province because their geography is different, that they are on the border of the Eastern Seaboard. Coal now is attractive again. They have a natural gas industry, not even close, it does not even compare to the potential energy output that we have both in gas and oil, natural gas, or gas and oil and electricity. It does not even compare, but they are going to do much better than us as a result of this.

Look at New Brunswick, what kind of oil industry they have. What kind of oil industry does the Province of New Brunswick have, compared to us? What kind of natural gas industry do they have compared to us? What about their electrical power industry, their utility industry, hydro resources? What do they have compared to us? Nothing to compare.

Let's talk about Prince Edward Island. How is their oil and gas industry going? Can anyone tell me that? How is their development of the electrical power industry and fresh water hydro resources going? It is not, because they do not have one. What about their natural gas industry? How are their plans going for their bottling industry of fresh water?

What we require, as I said before, is not a handout, it is a hand up; that is what we require. The acknowledgment that we, too, are a province in Canada, and that, as a province in Canada, we deserve to be treated like all others, and like others have been. That is the important caveat: like other provinces have been.

If the Province of Manitoba had charged or not allowed the Province of Alberta to transmit its oil across its border, but said to the Province of Alberta: You must sell us your oil and then we will sell it. The Province of Alberta today would be the poorest province in the country. Those are facts - that is not an opinion - if the same was done on their resource. As a matter of fact, in the 1930s and 1940s, I remember my grandfather telling me, as a young man of fifteen or sixteen, that he used to go down on the wharf with his father and take up horse drays full of salt fish off the flakes, put them on the boats to send to Nova Scotia, so they could put it on the train to go to Alberta - donated - as a young boy, my grandfather.

What they did right: there was a revolution that took place in Alberta, and a revolutionary that made it happen, and his name was Peter Lougheed. He was young, he was bright, and he had an Alberta-first mentality.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, he was, but he adopted an agenda dealing with the federal government's national energy plan, and he won. As a result, the people of Alberta, to this day, are continuing to win, because he made the right decisions on royalties. Actually, Alberta, as every day goes on, has more of a stake, because they are buying equity, they are buying shares in their own industry, because they are in the position to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: And sharing the profits with (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely, but they did it right. It was not so long ago that they were not in this position, that they were in a position like this Province is in right now. The Alberta Heritage fund - they do not have the type of resources, the quantity of resources that we have, and they were able to do it, simply because no sister province put them in a position that held their geographic position against them to take advantage of their resources.

Let's talk about Manitoba. Anybody familiar with the Nelson River project of Manitoba in the late fifties and sixties? It is a hydroelectric development. It is even more to the point of where we are. It was a huge project developed by the Province of Manitoba, not unlike the Upper Churchill, a lot smaller.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not as big.

MR. E. BYRNE: Not as big, but in terms of development. Guess what the difference is? The Nelson River hydroelectric project flows across another province's border. It goes across another province's border. In order for Manitoba to take that block of electricity that they produce on a hydro resource and sell it to their customers in the U.S., they have to transmit that power across another province's border, and have been doing so for forty-two years. The federal government intervened in that instance. It was tried, but the federal government intervened and told the adjacent province that you cannot hold hostage the Province of Manitoba. You must allow them to transmit their energy. That is a fact. Now, you can take a fee, what they call a wheeling fee, but they allowed it to happen. They actually interfered and said, no. But for the sake of national unity the federal government would never do that and has never done that for us here.

There is a famous story about how Joe Smallwood visited Louis St. Laurent in Quebec at the Chateau - what is the name of the -

MR. SULLIVAN: Chateau Fontenac.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. How about you?

Smallwood walked in and St. Laurent said to him: Joe, I know why you are here, but don't ask me to do it, because I can't; simple as that.

What was interesting about that time, if you go back, the Minister of Mines and Energy in the Province of Quebec at the time that contract was signed was one René Levesque. That is a true story. René Levesque was the Minister of Mines and Energy in the Liberal government at the time that we signed the now infamous 1969 Churchill Falls deal. Do you know that he made direct overtures to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, about the Province of Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland doing the Upper Churchill on a go-it-alone basis, just the two of us. It didn't happen. True story. We were too far advanced, Jack, the commitments had already been made. We might have owned the resource but someone else got the profits. No question about it.

However, it goes back to the point of where we are now. In terms of what was released today we have an opportunity to take advantage of a tremendous situation in terms of energy supply.

Bush went on to say this. He said that he was going to call upon the Federal Trade Commission to investigate claims of price gouging - interesting, that he went on to say this - or unfair pricing in gasoline and electricity this summer. Interesting! Because the demand and the crisis is there, try to eliminate price gouging in the unregulated or deregulated power industry. Electricity now has become such a commodity that those who have that are the ones who are going to have access to it. He went on to say today, Mr. Speaker, that we can make sure that any entity will not illegally overcharge. So, he called upon the Federal Trade Commission to make sure that nobody in America gets illegally overcharged. Should somebody have a complaint, it is the appropriate role of the FTC to look into it.

On the supply side, here is what he has called for: Executive orders and agency reviews aimed at easing regulations the industry says slows the siting and licensing of powerplants and gas refineries. A review of the Clinton administration's interpretation of new source review rules - this is important this one - that the coal industry and refinery say it discouraged them from making technological and other improvements because they run the risk of tougher environmental rules. They are going to be relaxed.

I am not sure I necessarily agree with this but this is what he said, I don't agree with it actually: Opening parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee to oil and gas exploration and encouraging the interior and other departments to look at opening other federal lands now off limits to energy exploration. Thirty-eight thousand miles of new natural gas pipeline; 38,000 miles. The circumference of the earth is 25,000-odd miles. Thirty-eight thousand new miles of natural gas pipelines. Miles, not kilometres. Incredible!

The plan he says is a reflection of his policy and priorities. Here is what he said, and it speaks to the crisis that they have and the opportunity, because of that, that we have: Our nation has not had a comprehensive energy policy in years. It begs an interesting question. I recall, before I was leader of the party I was Energy critic, on behalf of the party and the caucus at the time we released an energy policy. Do you remember that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes; or the requirement for a provincial energy plan and an energy policy. This government we have asked repeatedly for four or five years, since 1996 haven't we?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right back to Rex Gibbons (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. Where is the provincial energy plan? Today there is not one. You have never provided it. We have gone from going to privatize rivers - I remember when the now Minister of Tourism was the Minister of Environment and Labour, I think it was at the time, and he was going around - they were looking at Big Falls, the Torrent River on the Northern Peninsula, Terra Nova, North West River, and Granite Canal. Star Lake was part of it at the time but had just started to be developed. They had already approved plans for that - two rivers in Labrador, but the ones on the Island - I think we only have about 60 or 70 megawatts left to develop on the Island. That is if we developed everything that was left to develop - not very much. Do you remember that, Minister? You were trying to find 200 megawatts of power for that big smelter on wheels that was going all over the Province. Do you remember that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to him as a bit of a joke, but I remember back in 1996 when you were doing that, because of trying to find - there was a bit of an energy crunch here too. How were we going to power this thing? Two hundred megawatts were required; 210 or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred.

MR. E. BYRNE: Two hundred required, if memory serves me correctly.

It begs the question. George Bush has asked the question: that we have not had an energy plan in years. It went on to say that new power from the government has seized land for new electricity transmission lines. Officials say the plan includes - this is amazing, Mr. Speaker - $10 billion over ten years for tax incentives alone: $10 billion for tax incentives alone. An astronomical figure. Four billion for the purchase of new energy efficient vehicles. Four billion dollars are going to be made available to the people of the States for the purchasing of new energy efficient vehicles.

This would be interesting to my colleague who is the Environment critic: $1 billion dollars worth of tax incentives for developing methane gas from land fills for generating electricity. Incredible! Tax credits of up to $2000 for installing solar panels on residential homes. Irrespective, 260 million people could apply for this and they would get it; 260 million people in the States, if they qualify, will get this. That is how much of a crisis they are in.

There are several other tax incentives to encourage development and use of alternative fuels like biomass. What a recycling program. Driven by the dollar; driven by a crisis. A necessity, they say. How true is it? It is the mother of all inventions. It really is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, there are two there.

There is also in this plan, they said: A $1.5 billion tax incentive to make it easier for utilities to sell nuclear plants. Officials said: Those transactions are now doubled taxed. It is massive -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will tell you a story now. Do you want me to tell you a story about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I have. Should I tell it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Ten to nine. The day that you made your fateful mistake as Premier was when you called the by-elections on the Northern Peninsula to the design - I am leading to Frank Moores because there is a good Frank Moores story here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it?

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh yes, absolutely.

They were designed so that on January 30 there would be two new Liberal members elected. The next day our new leader was going to be installed as leader elect. That was meant to be a first embarrassment to him. Then that weekend those two new guys, Joseph Kennedy and Mr. Ralph Pilgrim, were going to walk straight up through the middle of the big Liberal convention, but it did not happen. It did not happen. That was the plan. Anyway, there is no doubt that is history.

MR. SULLIVAN: The best laid plans of mice and men (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am about to. This is important because the backdrop of it is critical.

Election night I am down with our candidate from St. Barbe, the Member of the House of Assembly, Mr. Wallace Young -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, we were rolling. We were cooking all day.

- and the leader of our party -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was the president?

MR. E. BYRNE: The president of what?

AN HON. MEMBER: The one (inaudible) swore in.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he was not president then.

MR. E. BYRNE: The same oath that he took was one I took when I became leader. The same one he took. It goes right back to when Simms became leader out in Gander. The leader of our party, the now leader of our party - it is an excellent story. The now leader of our party was up in The Straits with our other candidate. So, the results came in. We did very well in the north end where we knew we had to do well. We needed to do what we had to do anyway. The rest, as I say, is history. So, it was a great evening. That evening all of our supporters were around, et cetera. I think it was about 3 o'clock when I got to bed. We were having a press conference the next morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Boy, I have always been here, to be honest with you. Three elections in a row.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've had a few bad nights now.

MR. E. BYRNE: What bad nights were they?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, okay. The 1999 election was not a bad night either, boy. You fellows were privately counting forty-five seats. It is true. That is a fact.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not know. I never got to the bottom of that. Remember the former Premier who got on two nights before? The Member for Ferryland and the Member for Kilbride are going down in defeat. Between the two of us, we never lost a poll.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not you. I am talking about former to you. Anyway, I am off track now.

I got to bed around three o'clock and the phone rings in the room around quarter to nine. It was an exhausting, grueling, twenty-odd days because you are flat out, as you know. That is the way it is. The phone rings, and I heard this voice at the other end of the phone, at Young's Plum Point motel, this big deep baritone voice: Ed. I said: Yes, Frank, what are you doing? He said: Tell me, did we really win the both of them? I said: Where are you? He said: I am in Florida. I said: Yes, we did. To which he replied: They must have forgotten about all the sacks of flour I blew up on the Northern Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is a true story.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, he didn't, boy. I am only joking.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, to carry on until 6:00 p.m., break time.

MR. E. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to -

MR. NOEL: Your time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: He just gave me leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: We are breaking in four minutes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have another hour later on tonight, don't I?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you do.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have another hour later on tonight. I will entertain you lots then.

I want to conclude in a couple of minutes on what is being asked for today from the U.S. and how we can be part of a group that supplies this and take advantage of it for our own Treasury. Looking overseas, the report urges a review of sanctions that preclude economic ties that could limit the U.S. companies from taking a lead in developing oil and other energy resources in the Caspian Sea.

It is a long ways away, compared to where we are. "While the report calls generally for a review of all international sanctions, the President has made it clear he opposes, at least for now, lifting sanctions on Iran, Iraq, and Lybia."

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant opportunity for us: Executive Council, Intergovernmental Affairs, combined with Treasury Board, combined with the Department of Mines and Energy, and maybe on the Resource Committee of Cabinet, that plans have already been laid, plans have already been made, and there is a long-term team put in place to walk us through this, to see what we can do to assist with the prices and, at the same time, provide more revenue and more opportunities for the people at home.

Mr. Speaker, it is now 5:57 p.m. I understand that we are breaking for an hour and a half or an hour?

AN HON. MEMBER: An hour.

MR. E. BYRNE: Back at seven?

Mr. Speaker, I will finish on the non-confidence motion. It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is agreed that we break until 7: 00 p.m. This House is recessed until 7:00 p.m.

[The continuation of today's sitting will be found in Hansard 28A]

*********************************************************************

May 17, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 28A


[Continuation of Sitting]

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

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am really glad to be back. We have all been fed, including the Member for Cape St. Francis, so we are all settled in for the night, with lots of energy. I would like to make a few comments tonight and use my time in this energetic debate that we started some time earlier today.

I am not going to speculate, like some of my colleagues, after watching the news today, on the Cabinet post that was offered to the Member for Port de Grave. When we use the process of elimination, we could probably come down to a final conclusion. Maybe we will even suggest to the Premier that the person closest to him could have been traded over, but we won't speculate on that. I don't think that is fair because, as the Premier said, it is irrelevant. It doesn't mean anything now, so we will have to move on from that.

I am going to use a few minutes of my time now to do something very important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Would you? Do you want to get out now?

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Industry had a very dominant role, shall we say, in probably deciding who that would have been. I would say there was a lot of activity in the last twenty-four hours, and that the Minister of Industry had a lot to say on what was happening in the last little while. I would not even go so far as to say the last forty-eight hours; maybe even the last twelve hours there was a lot of activity, a lot of discussion, about what could have been. When the Member for Port de Grave finally made his decision, and we really do not know when it was, I can only imagine that last night and probably into the wee hours of this morning, the Minister of Industry -

MR. TULK: No.

MR. SHELLEY: No, not the wee hours of the morning? Probably early this morning, I would say. There was lots of maneuvering and manipulation, probably, on behalf of the Minister of Industry. I am sure he had a big part in the shuffling of the deck, if the Member for Port de Grave had decided.

What is surprising, Mr. Speaker, is that they had to go to the eleventh hour to finally try to make that maneuver, try to accommodate everybody, and not sure where they were going. I am sure they are polling. I am sure they are doing lots of polling, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I know they are doing lots of polling.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear about the poll yesterday?

MR. SHELLEY: No, I did not even hear about it. Do you want to tell me about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there was lots of polling done as they were doing their maneuvering in the last twenty-four hours. I know they are doing their polling because I am getting calls from constituents, and people are doing it..

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Who did it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, there was polling done yesterday, I say to the Minister of Industry. Last night, the night before -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, we know it is not being done by us. We know that the party opposite here are not doing it, because it is too expensive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: We know, if it is not those two - then who is it? Then the question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, but they will not spend it.

Mr. Speaker, then some of the questions: Do you support the export of bulk water? Do you support the ore leaving the Province? Do you support...? It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker, all the questions that this government is asking itself, what we talked about yesterday in the House in a private members' motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes, there is lots of polling going on, and the Premier knows and the Minister of Industry Trade and Technology knows. They are polling on issues because they have gotten such backlash on the change in direction of policies in the last few days that they are trying to find out for sure if we are telling the truth, if the calls that they are getting is just a small portion or if it is the general populous that is saying that the change in the direction of the party, the change in direction of the policy of this particular government, has changed so much. I believe as of yesterday, and the discussion we had here on the private members' motion, that we probably have them thinking a little bit. Certainly the Premier was. Certainly the Minister of Industry was thinking about it.

I had a call this morning, Mr. Speaker, not from my district. I will not say the district it was from, but it was not from this side of the House. A gentleman called me, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you (inaudible)?

MR. SHELLEY: I am trying to figure it out before the twenty minutes is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would not do that to the House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I am glad to see the House Leader back in his place, Mr. Speaker, so he knows what is going on. I know he always knows what is going on. I am glad to seem him back in his place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Now that everything has settled down again and the House Leader is back where he rightfully belongs -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will get back to my point. I had a call this morning, not from my district, not from a district on this side of the House, to tell me of a long poll, a long survey. He was called last night and he listed out the questions and as he listed out the questions, it was easy to find out -

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you get a copy?

MR. SHELLEY: I have a list of the questions, yes. I have a list of the questions right from: Do you support the government on bulk water? Do you support the government on ore going out of the Province? Right on down to the leadership and the parties and so on, Mr. Speaker. This gentleman told me how he voted but I will not say that here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh no, that was here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: There was probably a poll done while I was in China also.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in China?

MR. SHELLEY: Absolutely! Yes, I liked it.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that the people in the Province are asking the same questions of this government that we have been asking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Not you, I will tell you that, or the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. SHELLEY: No, the Hong Kong guardian.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Honolulu guardian.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad everybody has been fed. Do you know what a difference it is when everybody is fed and (inaudible)? They are a lot nicer. Do you know a good suggestion for the House, I say to the Premier? Maybe we should eat more often before we come back into the House. Look at this -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Maybe we should move!

Okay, everybody, we will have a unanimous -

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, all in favour.

MR. SHELLEY: I think we will have a unanimous vote in this House if we suggest one hour eating intervals in the House of Assembly. That will sit them down for a least an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, we will tell him.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am being picked on.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh my, to get back on track here.

Mr. Speaker, I have to try to get back on track and try to make a few comments on the things I wanted to talk about today. So, I am going to get a little bit serious and talk about education.

Today, in education -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Too bad you can't see that in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to get a bit serious and speak about a couple of issues I had planned to talk about during this debate, and that is education. Yesterday when I was speaking I talked about post-secondary education, and today I am going to talk about elementary education.

I would usually do this in Private Members' Day, but I did not have it in time for today so I want to do it now, salute some students in H.L. Strong Academy on Little Bay Islands in my district.

I will read this document that I have from the teacher, Jerry Weir. It says: H.L. Strong Academy, Little Bay Islands is a Kindergarten to Grade 12 school with a total population of thirteen students. During a consecutive four week period from January 15 to February 11, 2001, the six students in Grades 2 - 5 read a total of 2,847 books or an average of 474 books each.

This is the: Mr. Christie's Smart Cookie Reading Program. Some people are familiar with that. I think some members in the House are. It is called the: Mr. Christie's Smart Cookie Reading Program. It is about a reading program for elementary school students. In fact, the school in Pouch Cove won this last year. It is an Atlantic provinces contest. I would usually do this in members statements, but I did not have this today. I will do it now.

H.L. Strong Academy, Little Bay Islands, is a Kindergarten to Grade 12 school with six students, out of a population of thirteen students in the school, won this particular contest for reading. Some teachers are very familiar with this contest. It is for Atlantic Canada, for reading -

AN HON. MEMBER: Paul, do you want to do a rerun (inaudible)?

MR. SHELLEY: For reading this number of books, these students not only won the Atlantic Canada Regional Area prize of $5,000 worth of books for their school library, as awarded by Nabisco Ltd. but they also had the distinction of reading the greatest number of books per student from all across Canada. This is six students from H.L. Strong Academy in Little Bay Islands who won this award a couple of weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: As I said earlier, a very small school with only thirteen students on Little Bay Island and six of them are between Grade 2 and Grade 5 and they read a total of 2,847 books to win the contest.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is excellent.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, it is excellent, Mr. Speaker. I am very proud of those students. As a matter fact, because it is such a small number, I asked the teacher to give me the list of the students. They are: Krystle Roberts, Kyle Locke, Daniel Locke, Brittany Oxford, Mark Weir and Chantelle Weir. I am very, very proud of those students.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Absolutely! I am glad to stand in my place -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Would you like the list of the books they read, and would you like me to read them, I say to the member?

Also included in the grand prize is a visit by the Canadian Children's Author to their school. The school itself is also planning various ways to celebrate their great accomplishment. These celebrations will include the whole community with sponsorship from Nabisco and hopefully coverage by the news media.

How they did it - I am going to tell you how they did it, because I know the Minister of Industry is interested in this. I am sure he is the Acting Minister of Education, because the minister is not here right now, so I will tell you how they did it.

During the first week, the students read whatever and how much they wanted just to get the feel for the program. From the second week on, there were lots of internal challenges such as reading 50 books during the week or 80 books on a weekend, with prizes being awarded for those who met the challenge. Halfway through the program all students stayed at the school for pizza, to celebrate how far they had come. During the last week of the contest, they set aside a full day as a Reading Marathon. During the day, over 400 books were read. The students even stayed on their own time after school, until 4:00 p.m., to continue reading.

There was ten minutes scheduled into each day to read, but there was also extra time when students had their work finished, that they would pick a book and read a little. All books were kept track of by using a reading log. For each book read, the student had to have a teacher or parent sign the log to show the book had been read. The parents support was unquestionable.

The biggest factor in the success of this program was the dedication of the six students themselves. Many afternoons you would find them in the library for an hour before they would go home. When they would come to sign out books to take home to read they would have anywhere from forty to ninety books. The students did their utmost to meet the challenge and they succeeded. An extra benefit of the program was the increased interest in books which they developed due to this challenge.

Mr. Speaker, although they made light of this earlier, the truth is this particular type of program, and reading by young people in that age group, from Grades 2 to 5, is so, so important. I know, I encourage my children -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, no, and I don't. That is why I take it very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, with young children myself in the primary grades, I take that very seriously, as we all do, reading to our children. It is really important to get them reading at an early age. That is why I salute this company in sponsoring this. I think it is fantastic. For six students from Little Bay Islands to have read most books in this program, which happens every year, more than anybody across Canada, I think is fantastic.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of these students today. I am glad that the comments coming across the House are positive on this particular initiative, especially from the Minister of Industry. This indeed is a great accomplishment. I am so proud that these students are in my district, Mr. Speaker, and to be able to salute these students and their teacher who has encouraged them in this project. I am glad to stand in my place today in the House of Assembly and salute those particular students on their accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of things. Obviously I am going to pick a subject that is probably new and you have not heard it for a while. I am going to talk about roads in my district. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we get a chance to stand during Petitions in the House of Assembly and talk about a particular community or whatever. Overall, in the last few days, I have talked to a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the House, especially in the rural area, who have problems with roads. To a person, Mr. Speaker, including the minister and the former minister, right on down to the Member for Port de Grave, who resigned today, who was the Transportation Minister - by the way, the Member for Port de Grave who always talked about Tories and not doing anything for Tories, here is a fact for you. During his reign as the Minister of Transportation, the most paving was done in my district, the Tory District of Baie Verte, than was ever done, in that particular term.

MR. SULLIVAN: His one regret, he said.

MR. SWEENEY: No, Mr. Speaker. There is always the face and then there is the real person. He certainly did, and he said to me at the time - although he jokes about it - when you are a minister of the Crown, you are the minister of all people, from the tip of Labrador to the tip of the Avalon Peninsula. You are sworn in as a minister of the Crown to serve all the people of this Province. At some time, Mr. Speaker, hopefully -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) former member, your buddy, was there (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: How far off is the Member for the Bay of Islands, I wonder?

MR. SULLIVAN: Ask him, what is the reason now?

MR. SHELLEY: What is the reason now?

Let me give the Member for the Bay of Islands a little history lesson now. I understand. Because he does not know the circumstances, because the Member for the Bay of Islands does not understand and is ignorant to the situation, I will explain it to him. I will explain to the Member for Bay of Islands where the mistake was made on the Baie Verte Peninsula, Mr. Speaker.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for the Bay of Islands wants to get up and talk, which he does not do very often, he can certainly go to his place and he can get up and talk. Then he can explain it. Meanwhile, I will explain the truth and then you can tell me if it is right or wrong.

The truth about the history on the Baie Verte Peninsula - you don't need to tell me because I have been there. The truth is that the La Scie highway, which is some fifty-two kilometers, is a major trunk road. In 1988, when the Roads for Rail Agreement was signed, when major roads were done in this Province, the MP at the time - for the Member of Bay of Islands, who might want to understand this a bit more - of the Baie Verte district, which was under Humber-St. Barbe district at the time, the federal member never had the intelligence, or I don't know what to say, I don't know if there are any unparliamentary words I could use today, did not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, you are absolutely wrong. Do you realize how wrong you are? Why don't you stand and I will correct you? Go to your seat and I will correct you.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bay of Islands absolutely has no sense and no idea of what has happened. He is trying to make this political, but the truth is that the MP, the former, former Premier, was our federal MP at the time when the Roads for Rail Agreement was signed in 1988, and the La Scie highway was left out. The La Scie highway should have been done under the Roads for Rail Agreement. Instead, this year, like every other year, all the MHAs, on both sides of the House, have to line up to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and scream for a few scraps, because that is all it is. I don't blame the Minister of Transportation. I blame him to a point that he should have more in his budget to handle the problem, but the problem is simple. He has a request this year, as he told me, for $198 million in urgent road work that needs to be done. He has $18 million to answer that. You do not have to be a genius or the Minister of Finance to find out that is not going to work. That is like a bad credit card out of control. After awhile, if you don't make your payment on it, it just gets worse and worse.

The problem is that over the last ten or twelve years of this Administration you have not acknowledged the problem. You don't fix any problem until you acknowledge it. If we are going to try to keep doing that every year with $18 million, we are going nowhere.

The minister today is having headaches with all the members on both sides of the House when they are coming screaming for road work. That is the reality of it. There has been no plan. This year, again, at the last minute we are trying to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I have just been reminded of something else for the Member of Bay of Islands, if he would stick around and listen to it, seeing as how he asked me the question. Just before you go, just a little reminder for the Member for Bay of Islands, that the MHA for The Straits & White Bay North, the former, former Premier, still has 100 kilometers of gravel road in his district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: I tell the Member for Bay of Islands, before he starts to shoot things across the table, check his facts, stand in his place, and I will debate it with you any time at all, I say to the member. Now you can go.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the non-confidence motion in the government. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that I have about as much confidence in this government as do the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: That is not very much.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you saying the same thing that I said?

MR. HARRIS: I do not know what the Member for Cape St. Francis said. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, when I get around to reading Hansard, the member's speech, I will reflect on his comments then.

The issue here is whether or not we support a motion of non-confidence in the government. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this government has failed the people of this Province in terms of: how it is relating to the major issues of the day; how it is dealing with the question of its approach towards the Voisey's Bay development; how it is dealing with offshore development and royalties; how it is dealing with the proposed development of oil and gas in White Rose and other offshore matters, and all issues that have come to the forefront over the last number of months have shaken whatever confidence people had in this government. The Premier, often on a frolic of his own with respect to the export of bulk water, totally contradicting his own position and his government's position about a year ago; the failure of government to protect the changes to Fishery Products International, that were happening under his nose. There is a whole litany, Mr. Speaker, of issues that cause people of this Province to lose confidence, whatever confidence they had, in the Liberal government. That confidence has now reached a very low point.

Let's look at Voisey's Bay alone, Mr. Speaker. What do see, the government's response to the Voisey's Bay prospect? We have the public document, Mr. Speaker, released by Voisey's Bay Nickel two years ago showing that under the current regime, under current royalty rates, under the current taxation schemes, that the benefits to the Government of Canada in taxes and other revenues will be $4.9 billion Four point nine billion, and the benefits to the government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador Treasury will be $411 million. Four hundred and eleven million verses four point nine billion, and all the government members over there can do is laugh. All the government members over there can do is laugh and joke, and yet we have a state of affairs where the benefits -

[An hon. member claps.]

MR. HARRIS: I do not know if Hansard is recording that clap from the Member for Topsail, the Catholic Women's League of Topsail over there

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment, on a point of order.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I can understand where the Leader of the NDP Party is coming from.

On this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and a great honour for myself and my colleague from Humber Valley, the Member for Torngat Mountains. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, we are the only people in the history of this House to be voted here as legitimate members of the Catholic Women's League.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Lest any members were not present on that day, I know the new Leader of the Conservative Party was not present that day, but I just want to read to hon. members a part of this petition. It says: To the hon. House of Assembly, et cetera, et cetera, I ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada of Topsail District do hereby petition the House, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who signed that?

MR. HARRIS: There are only three signatures on the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: It says: Ralph Wiseman of the community of Topsail; Rick Woodford, Humber Valley; and the third one is Wally Andersen, Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the time, it is not for me to question anybody's religion. For all I know, they may have gone to St. Pius X and gotten baptized.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you question their gender?

MR. HARRIS: And I certainly wouldn't question their gender, but I know they have at least been purporting to be males. They ran as males, they got married as males, I think, most of them. That was one of the most interesting petitions ever presented to the House of Assembly, I have to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That was not one of them. I stand corrected. I must say it was a real privilege to be able to understand that this was a petition that was attached to another petition. Maybe the Opposition House Leader actually has the other petition. Because what the Catholic Women's League of Topsail would petition the House to do was to direct the Department of Human Resources and Employment to review their recent decision to reduce funding for the recipients by the amount of the child tax benefit. What had happened, Mr. Speaker, was this government, the one that had now talks about whether we should have confidence in them or not, had decided when Paul Martin, their favorite federal member of Parliament, had introduced the child tax benefit, they were going to claw it back.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have changed it. That petition changed it. And so it should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment, on a point of order.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Here is an example, Mr. Speaker, of what a petition can do. It was changed, and the hon. member knows that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the question arose as to why did we have two petitions before the House, because the original petition seemed to me to make more sense. The original petition is actually signed by a number of women, people named Doreen and Ada and Kathleen and Carol. No Wallys, Mr. Speaker, no Ralphs, no Ricks. You know, Carol, Lorraine, Paula, Marie, et cetera. They wanted, Mr. Speaker, to express their displeasure - that wasn't in the petition that the member presented - at the provincial decision to reduce their welfare payments by the amount given to the child tax benefit. They said: This is discrimination and gives no benefit to families who can probably use it the most. As our government representative, we request that something be done to end this unfair practice.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the member could not bring that petition to the House of Assembly. I don't know who stopped him. In fact, the Catholic Women's League sent a letter to the now minister saying that they would appreciate it very much if he would bring the petition to the attention of the House. For some reason, Mr. Speaker, he didn't see fit to bring that petition, he had to bring a different one to the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have lost confidence in this government, but I say that there are more important reasons than that. That decision was actually changed. It was not by virtue of the member's representations to the House of Assembly, although they certainly served to embarrass the government. There is no question about that. At least the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, the real reason I raised the issue of Voisey's Bay is because there is a shocking state of affairs based on the representations and presentations by Voisey's Bay Nickel Company stating as to what the benefits to Canada versus the benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador will be of a Voisey's Bay development. Based on the analysis done by Voisey's Bay Nickel, they tell us - they are the proponents. They know how many jobs will be created and what they are gong to be paid. They know what the taxes are, and they did their analysis. The benefits to the taxpayers of Canada and to the Government of Canada was $4.9 billion. To the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the government is $411 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, when that issue gets raised publicly, the Premier of this Province has nothing to say about it. He said: Oh, we cannot deal with that. We cannot deal with that. That is an issue of a clawback of equalization payments. We cannot deal with that on Voisey's Bay. Well, when are we going to deal with it, because equalization payments are not the only problem? Even before equalization payments are addressed, the benefits to the people of Canada and taxpayers of Canada would be twice as much as those to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through their government.

So, we see here a classic example of our laws, our tax rates, our royalties and all of the things that this government does being totally inadequate to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, outside of the issue of some jobs in the development and some jobs on an ongoing basis. They are important, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about that. No question that they are important, but we have to find a way to solve those problems before we can support, with confidence, a development of Voisey's Bay.

What do we have this Premier say, Mr. Speaker? We have the master of equivocation. The Deputy Premier, the master of equivocation. In this House of Assembly two or three days ago saying an unequivocal yes to a question as to whether or not there would be full consultation, a debate and public consultation before a decision is made. He answered yes. In fact, he was so sure of himself, he said it twice. He said it once, I think, in Hansard and he said it once inaudible, when his microphone was turned off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, inaudible. I thought you said in Ottawa.

MR. HARRIS: No, he did not say it in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. He is not going to Ottawa yet, I would say. The Senate appointments have not been made yet, I say to the Deputy Premier and the former Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we have the government taking a position that when the Deputy Premier, when it is suits him, he will say yes to a question to try and give the impression that there will be full debate and discussion on an issue before a commitment is made. Then we will nail down the Premier. The Member for St. John's East did it yesterday, and I did it right afterward. We tried to get him on. We had him on the hook, Mr. Speaker. We had him on the ropes, and the Member for St. John's East gave him a few smacks, a few verbal volleys. What did he say? He did not answer those questions. So, I asked him right after that, specifically, whether he intends to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know what the government proposes to accept before a commitment is made on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, Mr. Speaker, what did he say? He would not answer the question. He refused to answer the question and by his refusal, he made it very clear that his government intends to sign and commit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to a deal prior to any public knowledge, prior to any public discussion, prior to any public debate, prior to any vote in this House of Assembly, prior to any analysis of a proposed deal by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want, and that is one of the reasons why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have lost confidence in this Premier and this government.

I say to the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, they have lost faith, they have lost confidence and they have lost support for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. If they did not, that side would have voted yes, yesterday in the private members' resolution that was before the House. Let's have an election and let the people decide. If this government had really believed that there was confidence in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they would have gone to the polls as a result of the private members' resolution, which is really a vote of non-confidence, I suppose. It was an opportunity for the government to say: Yes, we will call an election. We will let the people decide. They said: No, we are not going to do that, Mr. Speaker.

What is going to happen in this Province is that we will see that this government intends to go forward with some sort of a proposal from Voisey's Bay Nickel from Inco to develop that project without public discussion, without full knowledge of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government will be committed. They will not have an election. They will sign the deal and we will be committed, once again, to something with such far reaching consequences, not only for the Voisey's Bay mineral deposit, but for the whole fiscal regime of Newfoundland and Labrador for many years to come. When we see in black and white a chart and a table showing that the beneficiaries of that deal will be 10 to 1, the taxpayers of Canada and Paul Martin's coffers in Ottawa which already have - we found out today and yesterday - a $15 billion surplus in this year alone, and they cannot set aside a paltry $33 million to help clean up the St. John's Harbour; with a $15 billion surplus.

This government has so little clout in Ottawa. The only Liberal Government in Canada, until today, and I am not sure how Liberal that is. I think the first item on their agenda is to take away the right to strike from teachers, I say to the Opposition House Leader. That is one of the commitments that Gordon Campbell has made as a Liberal Premier of British Columbia. How much clout or how little clout does this government have with the federal government in Ottawa? Even with their former, former Premier in the Industry portfolio, so little clout that even something as minor, in the grand scheme of things, as $33 million for the cleanup of St. John's Harbour. They cannot even accomplish that by way of a commitment from their federal counterparts, let alone the necessary money to solve the multitude of problems with the water systems in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Some of the municipal water systems have been on boil orders since 1991. Even in the little Town of Grande Le Pierre, a boil order has been in effect since October 4, 1997. Instead of fixing that problem the Premier wants to take the whole of Gisborne Lake and ship it out, and concentrate on trying to change that rule. Try and ship out Gisborne Lake water to the United State, Saudi Arabia or some other place instead of solving the problems of Grand Le Pierre half a kilometre away, who have not been able to drink their water since 1997 because this government has not found a way to assist them to clean up their drinking water so that they can do what people should take for granted, turn on their tap and have a drink of water. Just as you, Mr. Speaker, are doing right now. The people of Grand Le Pierre, half a kilometre away from Gisborne Lake, cannot sit down and drink a glass of water from their tap because this Province has it under a boil order since October, 1997 and have not done anything to help them fix that problem. Instead, they are down in Atlanta, Georgia trying to convince people that the solution to our problems is to sell our fresh water and export it because they think it is a shame that it is pouring into the ocean. That is the kind of government we have.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: That is why there is no confidence in this government by this hon. member or by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I spoke for two days on the Budget and I only got to page 16.

I do want to use this opportunity to speak on the non-confidence motion. First of all, I want to let the Deputy Premier know that I have not spoken on it before. Secondly, to just give him an example of how cooperative we have been; unprecedented, I would say, in this Legislature.

I will give an example. Bill 1: The Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. We put one speaker up in second reading; that being myself. Only one speaker for a few minutes. Bill 5: Prepaid Funeral Services. In second reading we put up one speaker only; the critic, the Member for St. John's South. He was very short, he did not even use up his time. Bill 6: Income Tax. One speaker; myself on that. I was less than the time allocated. We had unlimited and I only used a matter of several minutes. Bill 7: Municipal Elections. We used just two speakers on that bill in second reading; the Member for Conception Bay South and the Member for Cape St. Francis. On The Schools Act, Bill 8, a very significant piece of legislation, and we used one speaker at second reading. Bill 9: the tobacco health care recovery. A very significant piece of legislation that we endorsed, and one speaker only at second reading - myself - on that particular bill. At second reading on the Ombudsman, we used only one speaker. Citizens' Representative; one speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, only one speaker. On the one dealing with chiropractors, dieticians and social workers, Bill 11; one speaker, the Member for Waterford Valley. The Medical Care Insurance Act, we used one speaker only, the Member for Waterford Valley. It gets better.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it gets better.

Now, the Liquor Corporation; only one speaker for a short period, being myself, as the critic. Bill 14: The Provincial Court; only one speaker, the critic, the Member for Lewisporte. Bill 15, dealing with aquaculture, the definition of what is called aquacultural gear; one speaker only, myself on that particular one. Bill 16: The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act; at second reading of that bill, one speaker, the Member for Cape St. Francis. Bill 17: The Financial Administration; one speaker only, a very short period, myself as the critic in that area.

MR. TULK: Loyola, you are going off your head!

MR. SULLIVAN: What do you think I am doing over here taking notes all the time, I say to the Deputy Premier?

Bill 18: Labour Relations; one speaker only, the Member for Cape St. Francis. The Shops' Closing Act; we went just a little bit longer but we still did not use a quarter of the time that we could have used. The Member for Cape St. Francis is the critic and the Member for St. John's West. Bill 20: The Provincial Court; it took just a few minutes. I spoke on that one. I represented a critic.

On every single one of these bills about one speaker used a fraction of their time, with only one exception, petroleum products on that bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am just saying how cooperative we are in expediting legislation that we believe in through the House of Assembly here!

Petroleum Products: a bill that this government said: Cannot work. They told the people of this Province: It will not work. They had a review -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, a lawyer went out, reported back, and the Premier said, on the recommendation, it is not going to solve it, we are not going to proceed. Then he runs for Premier and he is going to do something about it, he is going to change his mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. Yes, it is very thoughtful of you, and I would do the same for you.

AN HON. MEMBER: I know you would.

MR. SULLIVAN: I might add, under petroleum products, the Member for St. John's East, the Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for Bonavista South, and we had the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne speak on it, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, the Member for Waterford Valley spoke on it, the Leader of the Opposition spoke on it, and the Member for St. John's West. Now, every -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I am reporting it for people who do not know what gender they are. I would like to let them know. I have it in writing, that he has said he is a member of the Catholic Women's League. He has put that in writing.

I have raised this in the House about five times before. I don't have to do it again for the Tourism Minister, do I? Do I have to do this again for the Tourism Minister?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times I have risen on this particular issue. Time and time again we have talked about the legitimacy of this particular petition, and it was these people opposite who voted for it. They supported the petition, knowing full well that there were three males listed on that petition. Even the Leader of the NDP voted for it.

I know what the problem is. We, the three of us, made history in this Legislature. Never again will this Legislature vote unanimously for that type of petition, with three males listed on it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Once again, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I might add, I was here the day the Member for Topsail - I kept a copy, because I have had an opportunity to raise it several times since - sought some advice on whether he should sign it, whether he should sign it as a member of the Catholic Women's League. I said: If you feel, yes, you are a woman and you are a member of the league, use your own judgement; sign it or not. Sure enough, he scribbled down a name, hunted around and got two other signatures.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister keeps turning up and down her hearing aid. Some days she cannot hear me, other days I am too loud. She has to get on the right wave length over there. You have to get on the proper wave length.

AN HON. MEMBER: You just burst my eardrum, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I have accomplished one of my goals.

He did not listen to me when I told him - and his officials, some of them, who thought the worst road in the district.... He thought he was approving it for one road, but he approved it for a different one, the one he paved last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can't say. I don't want to tease him too much. I won't get into that. I do not want to make him feel bad. We know how bad he is.

I wasn't finished before I got interrupted there.

The committee, I will give you an example. The Deputy Premier knows, being Government House Leader, how cooperative we are over here in expediting business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

I am going to say, in Bill 1, in Committee, not one speaker did we put up to move it through; Bill 4 hasn't gone to Committee; Bill 5, in Committee, not one speaker; Bill 6, not one speaker; Bill 7 hasn't come to Committee. Not one speaker got up in Committee stage of any of these bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not doing your job.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe we are not. Bill 11, not one speaker; Bill 12, not a speaker in Committee; Bill 13, not one speaker did we put up in Committee; Bill 14, no speakers; Bill 15, no speakers.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right! Bill 16, we put one speaker up, the Member for Cape St. Francis; Bill 17, only one. I asked a question to the minister but I couldn't get a right answer so I asked her a second time in Committee. Bill 18, one member in Committee; Bill 19 did not get to Committee.

Every single bill in Committee, seven out of nine, we let go right through without one person standing, and only two people got up on any bills, for only a couple of minutes, and the record will show that. We have moved legislation through this House faster than it has ever been before, I would say, in the history of this House. Go back and read Hansard, the record. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, I would say, and that is why.

The Leader of the Opposition did say that we could have finished the Budget at 5:30 p.m., but now we will finish it some time on Tuesday evening, if that is the case. That is fine, we are prepared to do that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Prepared to do what?

MR. SULLIVAN: We are prepared to pass the Budget on Tuesday when we run out of speakers.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Budget, okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, the Budget. That is what we are talking about, the Budget. We could have had it at 5:30 p.m., but we had a good supper didn't we? The Member for Baie Verte acknowledged that. It quietened down the dog from Cape St. Francis, I think he said; it quietened him down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You are not allowed to speak when you are not in your seat. You have to go back to your seat if you want to address the House. It is not permitted in parliamentary procedure; you should not be a heckler. You should not be heckling.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: At least it is nice change from the word you used so often for three years against me: fearmonger. At least heckler is a more pleasant word.

Actually, I only got to page sixteen on the Budget Debate after a couple of days because we are looking at approving something like $3,982,000,000 that we are going to spend in the Province over this year. Some of it is a budget -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We should, I agree. I spoke two days and I figured I will not prolong it any longer. I could have gone unlimited time. I could have gone for a month, but I am sure that most people would not appreciate being here in June and July listening to me speak on the Budget. I did get to page sixteen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, it is a significant expenditure of the Province when you are looking at $3,982,000,000. I think it should take a lot of time. I think that we should have the members here get up and have their comments on this, because it is significant. I am sure the Deputy Premier is saying that is right because he would do the same thing, and he has in the past. He has drafted some nice motions and amendments to the Budget in the past. In fact, we even stole one of his once; we used one of his.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, we used that exact wording once, but he did not try to rule it out of order. As soon as he heard it, he knew he had used it before. So, he knew it was going to be acceptable. What is it that my colleague from Bonavista South said when we had the legislation come here? If it was good enough for -

MR. SULLIVAN: In Ontario.

MR. FITZGERALD: If it is good enough for Eddie Greenspan (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If it is good enough for Eddie Greenspan, it should be good enough for Eddie Roberts.

The Government House Leader at the time would not allow it, let the bill die, would not accept it.

MR. FITZGERALD: The next Government House Leader (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but they introduced the bill, not you. They did not allow it.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I know, but it was the same bill.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the same bill, I admit, but they did not allow it to come under the name of the Member for Bonavista South. It came under as a government bill, not as introduced. But he did introduce, it in all fairness. I think it died on the Order Paper and then, in the next session, the bill was reintroduced or introduced, I guess, by government at the time; because it was never really introduced. It was just a notice given.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes he did, and I acknowledge that, and I think that is worthwhile because he sincerely believed that people would benefit by having the opportunity, I think, of getting food that was being dumped, I guess, from supermarkets and other areas. It might be outdated in some cases, the date mark, but still it could be used. There are people here who did not support that, of course, and they had their reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I did not. I do not like singling out individuals to mention, but I will say that it was not carried unanimously.

MR. TULK: This party?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it wasn't.

MR. TULK: Your party?

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

MR. TULK: That party?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK: How many members (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, at the time, I don't know, but he did put forth an interesting point on it. He did put forth an interesting point but we did not agree with him because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Alright. Yes, he did, and he made some valid points and we give him credit for valid points, but we didn't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. We figured that it might be a legitimate point. People receiving food at food banks, there is a general screening and so on, to make sure. Nobody wants to put something on the market that could be harmful to other people. So, that went through, almost unanimously, and he made his points.

Now, with such a major expenditure in the budget here - we keep hearing it mentioned, you know, how much money, what a big increase has gone into the budget in health, and it has, but we have to put it in perspective, the amount of money we are now spending on health compared to what we used to. We have to put it in perspective, because the Department of Health took over large divisions from the Human Resources and Employment Department, the original Social Services Department. Large chunks were transferred into the Department of Health. So, when you look at the Department of Health budget you can see it has increased so enormously from five years ago, because we took the Child Protection Division and we shifted it into Health from Social Services. We took Family and Rehabilitative Services and moved it into the Department of Health from another department. Youth Corrections and so on were not under Health before and now they are. So, we moved whole chunks of areas in under Health. Obviously, that is going to inflate the budget and give the impression that we are spending a lot more on health that we used to. So, we have to compare apples and apples when we compare how much the budget has grown. You should leave the parts of other departments that were elsewhere, when you are doing comparisons.

Now, we have increased the budget in spite of that. We have still increased the budget in health when you leave these things out of there. We have increased the health budget, but still, can you imagine how much we have increased it and still we have gone from 3,100 hospital beds to 1,800. Now, there is something amiss, there is something not functioning right in this system, when you pull 1,300 beds out, you save all that money, you shut down hospitals and you have longer waiting lists, you have people who can't access services. You are wondering, what is not working. There is something not functioning.

If you were in a business and you streamlined and you cut down businesses and you had to spend more money on your cost of operation, you would be wondering what has gone wrong. Don't you restructure to get efficiencies? Don't you restructure to be able to put more product through an assembly line or more people through a hospital line? Shouldn't that be the method in restructuring? We have restructured the health care system here and we were told: We are going to have a restructured system, we are going to be open in the nights, you can go in and get blood work and all these diagnostic tests in the nighttime. We are going to have a system with less facilities but we are going to get more people through the gates of those systems. But it has not happened. Anybody sitting in this House now knows full well - anybody can say they know somebody who is in a hospital and they know what the problems are in the system. Every single person is aware of the problems in the system. Now, everybody might not be aware of solutions to the system, and that is something we have to look at.

I don't have all the solutions to the system. I have many, many suggestions I think that can improve in several areas. You have to look at the system very close to see exactly where we are missing the boat, where we are not streamlining. There are many, many areas that need to be assessed. We have to look at, number one, the human resource sector. That is one factor. We have to look at how productive is forcing someone to come in on overtime and working extra hours, and then they take a sick day, and they have to get someone else to come in on overtime and then that person has to do overtime and they are off on a sick day. You have to look at all this strategy where people are being pushed to the limits. I have seen it. Sometimes the system peaks and it is worse than others. Other times it is more on a level plain. You have to look at: When an enormous amount of overtime gets calculated, paid out just in the health care system alone in this Province, it is staggering. It is in the millions of dollars, the overtime paid out. Staggering!

I used figures here in the house, even in health Labrador. I used one example down in Labrador, where the amount of overtime in the system is unbelievable. We went through periods, in different parts of the health system, in the past. We are still experiencing them. We are still experiencing a shortage of health care professionals. For instance, in the Janeway at the time, in the neonatal unit, how they had to fly people to Winnipeg because we did not staff it at a high percentage level.

What happens if you have an occupancy rate of 60 per cent and you staff it to a level of a 50 per cent occupancy and have extra people who are temporary, they will be okay when you are occupying 60 per cent, but when you go up to 90 per cent, you are using all your regulars, all your temporary people, all your casuals, and now you have nobody to reach out to, because we don't have enough people in that particular base.

They did not allow people who were (inaudible) in one area to work in another area. I know there are certain collective bargaining issues at stake here too. They did not allow that to happen. What happened: people made decisions that they did not work full time. I know of people who made decisions: I do not want to work full-time. I want to do two shifts a week. I have young kids. That is my decision. I only want to work two days a week. I am permanent, but I am part-time. That is all I want to work, because I want to be at home with my kids. When they had to pick up the phone and be told: Your job is on the line. You come to work.

That should never have to happen. When you make a decision to work on a part-time, permanent basis, and you have kids, and you want to put that as your priority, I think that should be respected.

What happened in many cases here, it poisoned the working environment and the relationship with people within the system. I said on April 1, way back, when we looked at this issue here, that it did more than money can fix, when we went to that stage. It broke down a certain respect, a certain relationship within the system that only time can heal.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to finish up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just this train of thought for a minute. I will not belabor it.

What happened at the time - I think the minister, a former member of the profession, and she might know lots of people around the Province who might agree with this - it was not a money issue any more. Once it came back, and you were reclassified and received your raise, the belief and respect that should be held for the position was broken. When that respect was broken, it could never be fixed. It does not matter how much money you give, it never changed their minds. Yes, it could keep people here in Newfoundland and Labrador but it would never change their minds. We were pulled over the coals, we lost our dignity and respect, and that is a price that will be paid in due course by people, regardless. Those issues turned people against the government of the day and they will never come back and revisit until they get a chance to vote and exercise their ballot because of that. You can give salaries and do things but when you break the trust, the confidence, and the respect level, that is something that is tough to get back. Other things can be fixed, but that was not.

I will not belabor the point. I know I am on leave and I will conclude with those comments.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this evening to participate in this very important debate with respect to the issue of a non-confidence motion facing this government with respect to a budget that was handed down in this Legislature just a number of weeks ago. Of course, members on this side of the House have had an opportunity, in great detail, in significant detail, to render their opinions as to how each individual member, representing their own particular constituents throughout a variety of parts of this Province - each member has had an opportunity, in detail, to explain his or her opinion as to how they feel this particular government, in the presentation of its Budget, simply has done nothing to help the lives of the people of this Province. In fact, by virtue of the motion which has been presented, has shown that there is a lack of confidence in what members opposite are presenting. In fact, in great ways, in many examples and illustrations, and very vivid examples, have shown why there is indeed a very significant lack of confidence in what government members opposite have presented in a document called a Budget, and presented to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador back in the month of March of this year.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting as my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Ferryland, was reviewing the various pieces of legislation and how members on this side have spoken - in a very cooperative fashion, I might add, in many respects - with respect to each individual piece of legislation. It was interesting to note how there has been such a flip-flop very often in what was being presented by legislation in terms of the bills before us and how that very often has contradicted what members opposite have said in the past. There are two very striking examples. The first one I would like to refer is in my own critic area. In fact, the Minister of Mines and Energy and I just had a brief chat about that particular bill. I think this particular piece of legislation, perhaps, presents to the people of this Province how government has flip-flopped and how the Premier, in particular, has flip-flopped in such an important area of public policy with respect to the issue of gas regulation.

I was going through my notes, Mr. Speaker, and I found a news release which I think members on both sides of the House will find interesting. It was a news release which was presented by the present Premier when he was the Minister of Mines and Energy in January of 1999; just over two years ago. It is his news release. I would like to refer to it briefly. It says: "Minister reacts to calls for gasoline price regulation. Mines and Energy Minister Roger Grimes has reacted to a new round of calls for gasoline price regulation. The issue of price regulation was reviewed in detail during the latter half of 1997..." Members will recall that this was done in a very thorough report by the then appointed Consumer Advocate, Mr. Dennis Browne. It states: "...when, in response to consumer concerns government appointed Dennis Browne to investigate and report on gasoline prices in the province."

The news release continues: "In particular, Mr. Browne was directed to determine whether regulation of gasoline prices would be in the public interest." Now, let's keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, this is the news release of the then Minister of Mines and Energy, one Roger Grimes, in January of 1999, and compare what he said then with what is being faced and being presented to the people of the Province by virtue of Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products, which, of course, is just a fancy name for gas price regulation.

"The study was completed following extensive consultation with consumer groups, town councils, the oil industry and various provincial and federal government departments." The then Minister of Mines and Energy and yes, the now hon. Premier, the same individual, refers to the fact that this indeed was a very significant, consultative process that was undertaken back in 1997.

I will continue the release, Mr. Speaker: "Government generally agreed with the consumer advocate's report and accepted its two main recommendations..." and here is the interesting part, Mr. Speaker: "...that there be no price regulation and that government monitoring of gasoline prices be improved, said Mr. Grimes."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The hon. Premier.

"A monitoring and publication program has been established within the Department of Mines and Energy to keep the general public informed of gasoline prices and the issues related to gasoline pricing."

MR. FRENCH: John, he never said that.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This is a news release, I say to my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, by the then Minister of Mines and Energy, our Premier today who, as we can see - and members opposite, if you are interested in having a copy I will be happy to provide the table opposite with my copy so that other copies can be made, so that all members can share in the reading perhaps of this very important document. Why I think this particular release is important - because it is perhaps one of the signature pieces of legislation that is being presented during this session of the Legislature. We all remember that during the leadership campaign of our present Premier there were several signature, key note areas, public policy areas, that were presented. One, the area of the Ombudsman, which is presently being debated before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Citizens' Representative.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Citizens' Representative.

The Child Advocate, which of course is to be presented in due course; but perhaps the one that is equally important, perhaps even most important if I not mistaken, was perhaps one of the earlier commitments that was made by the hon. the Premier, was the issue of gas regulation. Again, it is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, how this diverts in such a significant and substantial way from what this same gentleman had said when he filled the portfolio of Mines and Energy just two years prior.

This again is the same release, I say to members opposite, and the same invitation is being extended, Mr. Speaker. If members opposite would like to have a copy, I would be happy to provide any member with a copy. "One argument against price regulation is that prices would normally be higher in a regulated market." Higher! This is quite a strong statement and a very interesting statement, but what makes it perhaps even a profound statement, Mr. Speaker, is the author of the statement. Let's read the sentence again: "One argument against price regulation is that prices would normally be higher in a regulated market. Tracking of gasoline prices in this province confirms that this would be the case here." So, Newfoundland is particularly recognized and singled out as a jurisdiction in which the concept and notion of gas price regulation would perhaps not work.

The author continues to state: "It's important to note that the Consumers Association of Canada is also on record as being opposed to price regulation." So, he adopts the words and the conclusions. He adopts the conclusions. The release, I might add, is very well written. It is a very concise document because he summaries, he introduces the topic, he concludes it very well, but as a part of the body of the document he relies on very important authors and critics in this area and throughout other parts of the country. He quotes: "...the Consumers Association of Canada is also on record as being opposed to price regulation."

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the same individual who puts forward today as one of the signature public policy issues and areas of interests, and of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is the same author, the very same individual who, some two years ago, spoke out in a very impressive way, I might add, by virtue of this very press release, by suggesting to the people of the Province that price regulation was not the way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking: Are there other areas where we see the Premier of this Province saying one thing one day and saying something else on another day? I must say, it did not take me very long - in fact, it took me about two seconds to come up with another example, and I think the example was addressed very effectively in the last couple of days by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Kilbride. It was addressed yesterday by a couple of members of the Opposition in addition to the leader. This, of course, being the very issue of when and where are we going to debate the very important issue of Voisey's Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: When and where.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: When and where.

What is interesting there and again -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have some information, I say to my colleague. I think I have enough to make the point. However, I would be interested in your comments at a later date, I say to my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.

Gas regulation was one area, but it seems to me that there was perhaps another area where the word flip-flop sounded a little callous in one sense -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Weak.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is it weak?

I think it drives the point home. I think it sends a message to the people of the Province that one day the man who now sits in the Premier's chair says one thing, and the next day it is quite possible for the people of the Province to expect the same man, who sits in the same chair, to say something else.

Mr. Speaker, in an address last week - I believe it was before the St. John's Board of Trade or it might have been the Rotary - the Minister of Mines and Energy spoke to Rotary. There was a (inaudible) towards the very end of that address. The Minister of Mines and Energy would know the exact wording much better than I would, but there was certainly a suggestion in his address to Rotary when the Minister of Mines and Energy said that the issue of the development of the Voisey's Bay Project and how it impacts upon the people of our Province would be debated fully in a very open way. There was some language similar to that, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I applaud the Minister of Mines and Energy because we, on this side of the House, agree with you fully. It was good use of language, I say to the minister, and the point would be well appreciated by the people of this Province.

Several days ago, of course, in this Legislature, our Deputy Premier on the same topic went a little bit further and said in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition that the issue of the development of Voisey's Bay would be fully debated in this Legislature prior to a contract, or a fully completed negotiated contract, having been finalized. So we have the Minister of Mines and Energy, in a very appropriate way, making this statement to the St. John's Rotary last week. We have it confirmed and strengthened, I would say, Mr. Speaker. The point was strengthened by the Deputy Premier several days ago. Again, the man who sits in this chair, the gentleman who sits in this chair, Mr. Speaker, has left me confused. The man who sits in this seat has left me confused, because I am thinking about gas regulation. Well, is it best for the people of the Province? In 1999 it was not what the doctor ordered. In 2000, just prior to the leadership convention, it was what the doctor ordered. In early 2001, the doctor has, in fact, written out a prescription, because it is now presented to the people of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where are we with respect to the issue of the open and full debate of Voisey's Bay? I have to think of the individual, the man who sits in the Premier's chair. We have the Minister of Mines and Energy suggesting to the people of the Province a full and open debate is required, is essential, before this issue is once concluded. We had the Deputy Premier, in direct response in this Legislature, earlier this week, strengthening that comment, saying it should be fully debated in this Legislature before a full signing is completed. Again, I am forced to think about the man who sits in the Premier's chair, in the Premier's seat, on a day-to-day basis in this House. What will he say on that issue?

Mr. Speaker, I am confused. It is not clear to me, Mr. Speaker, whether we debate this issue in the House -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: A point of order? Oh, I am sorry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear that the Member for St. John's East is confused. I wonder whether he has confidence. Has he lost confidence or is he confused? Which one is it?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

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

My hon. colleague was out all day, unfortunately, but he is here today and I want to add one piece of information that he missed. It was a conversation that I picked up coming down the hall and interjected myself into, between the Deputy Premier and somebody else. He was trying to convince this somebody else that he really didn't say that he was going to debate it in the Legislature.

MR. TULK: I never said that.

MR. E. BYRNE: You did. You did. I say now, yes, you did, and we have the paper to prove it. Isn't that correct? So, for my colleague's sake, as you continue to conclude, to have that very important piece of information, that while he may say something in here, out there he is trying to convince somebody that what he said in here really didn't mean what he said in here, if you know what I mean.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I thank my colleague for that bit of information, and, unfortunately, it has not changed my state of confusion, because, of course, we are now presented with more pieces of the puzzle. The problem is, of course, that the people of this Province, the electorate of this Province, will one day be forced to put this particular puzzle together, Mr. Speaker; and that is the challenge.

The issue is, again, talking about when and where we develop, when and where we discuss at length for the public benefit, the concept of the contract, the agreement, the terms and the conditions of the contract, the agreement, the impact upon Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, what it means to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Do we debate the details in the House of Assembly? Do we debate the details outside the House of Assembly? Do we analyze and assess the contract and agreement, once it is signed? Do we analyze and assess the contract and agreement before it is signed? Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't know, and the reason I don't know, and I am sure the majority of the people of this Province don't know, is because the gentleman who sits in the Premier's chair in this Legislature still doesn't know. He doesn't know. The Premier of this Province, in the language he has chosen to use, the language and the words - because words are important, Mr. Speaker - he has chosen to use this week, in trying to explain to the people of the Province whether or not there will be a fully committed public debate on the issue of the Voisey's Bay development, the language has been so confused and convoluted, I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that not only do members of this House not know, and not only do the public of this Province not know, but the hon. gentleman himself doesn't know; and therein lies the problem.

There is the real concern, I say to the Deputy Premier. There is the concern, because if he knew there would at least be a plan. If he knew there would be a concept, there would be a proposal, there would be a frame of mind, there would be at least -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I wonder if hon. members would give me a few seconds just to conclude.

Therein lies the problem, I say, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the gentleman himself who sits in the Premier's chair of this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is why each and everyone of us ought to be genuinely concerned.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: I would just like to make a couple of points this evening and talk about something that I have been bringing to this House since I have been here, I suppose, and that is with the fishery on the Northern Peninsula and, I guess, the effects it has been having on the communities that I represent. I think, because of the fishery and what has been happening there, it is probably a great part of the reason why I am here today.

The principle of adjacency is an issue that has been of great concern to the people of the Northern Peninsula. We have always felt that the principle of adjacency would be something that would have to be looked at if places like the Northern Peninsula where they exist. Really they have not been looked at at this point. The only thing that we have seen offered, basically, has been federal programs that have insurable earnings, which has no future for our communities. The leadership of our communities have been there. Once we participate in those kinds of things, they are out there and they are helping us get to the end faster, because there really is no hope for us when we get out there and that is the only thing that is on the table.

I think now, in some ways, when the communities of the District of St. Barbe went out and made up its mind it wanted a change in course, it was one of the things that I came to realize, that it does not have a future with the course that we are on. We have to change that course.

I think, more so than anything else, instead of having, maybe, tee-shirts from Hong Kong, we have to look to the resource that is on our shores, and that is the fishery, if we really want a turn around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: We just cannot go and have someone lead us off in different directions because that, more than anything else, has been one of the things I felt was wrong with places like the Northern Peninsula. The good people, the people who really cared about the communities and worked for them, were being misled. I think that has to change and it has to be through leadership in a meaningful way.

We have seen the northern shrimp come on. I suppose that was one of the things that really turned the tide for us here on the Northern Peninsula. When the northern shrimp came on stream we saw this pass by our doors, because for a few years we were convinced that there was nothing around our shores, there was no welfare and that we should move on. When we saw the northern shrimp coming to our shores, coming in on our wharves and being trucked off, it was undeniable then that we did have a future if we could only go out there and get a government that would understand that, yes, there had to be a share. There had to be some means of finding a way so that we could share in the wealth that was out there. So far that has not happened. I think we have to find a way now to build that momentum, to see that we do get our share.

I think of when the Premier was in the leadership race and his stand on adjacency. They had a lot of people excited out our way. However, this last week I was in with a group of people from Black Duck Cove, and they were quite happy that they had met the Premier in the Lobby, and he made a commitment that he would meet with them and he did. They are reasonable people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. YOUNG: Yes. The thing is the Premier was out there, and those people were excited and they got to talk to the Premier. We were out there. Sure, we went out knowing that it was the late time of the season, because we have gone out for three years now. We have gone in the fall and the time that we have come to realize, or decided to make a stand, has been in the fall. This time around, people have decided, we have to make it in the spring, because the only thing to offer you in the fall would be make-work which is kind of (inaudible). So we went to the Premier and the people offered him a deadline of Wednesday at ten o'clock, as such. They went home and they were rather excited. They thought this was going to happen. They went back there and said, yes. I must say they were rather disappointed on Wednesday morning when they found out it was back in the Minister of Fisheries office instead of in the Premier's Office, that he was going to offer a solution to what is happening with the adjacency problem on the Northern Peninsula.

So, anyway, we are here now. We can stand and watch those people tomorrow. From what I understand, to try to bring pressure to this Premier and this government, they will probably be out in the middle of the road tomorrow afternoon.

MR. J. BYRNE: What a shame!

MR. YOUNG: It is a shame. The people on the Northern Peninsula, although we seem like we are always going there, it is that we have no choice but to go to forceful means to try and get some say in what is happening out there.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is not the first time, Wally, that you have had to do the same thing.

MR. YOUNG: Well, that is right. You know, twice now we have been on the road and trying to go. We have been just out there having make-work projects which is basically federal dollars coming in to sustain our communities, but it has not been in such a way that it will stay in our communities or is offering any future for us. We have come to the conclusion that each year when we go, there are fewer and fewer people there to go, because every year when we do this we lose a few more of our people from our communities who are dying. So this time we are into spring.

I suppose this is a good opportunity, so that no one is really surprised tomorrow when you go out and you hear the roads on the Northern Peninsula are not flowing through as they have always been, because those people are out there and they know they have no choice today. It is either get out and do such a thing or get out and get aboard a truck and leave and go to Alberta. I mean the people on the Northern Peninsula who have been able to get to Alberta, as many as six people have gotten aboard a truck at one time to drive to Alberta. I could not imagine driving twenty miles with six people in a truck, let alone driving from places like Castors River to Red Deer or wherever in Alberta, you know, with six people.

Those are the things that some of the people in my neighbourhoods have been doing. I tell you, a lot of them are gone. There are very, very few of us left. The thing I think has been changed is that the people who are left are very determined people. They do not have a great lot of choice because they have reached a certain point in the lives where they have homes and they are just not willing to get up and go. So, I think, the fighting spirit is pretty much there in the people who are left. I think we are going to have to come to grips and deal with them sooner or later, when it comes to the fishery.

Black Duck Cove is a place, you know, that is out there. It is a plant that I have been involved in, very much so. I went out and I was supposed to go back and talk about how it started, and talk about policy. They had an owner there who went in and saw a deadline coming up, and the deadline was, if you were up and going by such a date, well then you could have shrimp licence. If you weren't, you couldn't. So, the man was left with very little option. He is finding a situation where he has to go and get equipment, in Iceland, that is obsolete to put in a fish plant in Black Duck Cove. He never had the time, the means, to get a good solid plan put in place, because those deadlines were there. He was a small operator who was out there, maybe not in the loop.

To get things going - I suppose there was an election coming up - get (inaudible) Black Duck Cove to go out there, and maybe the political powers of the day went out and found an investor to come in and help them. Then again, that was an investor who was in for a short period. He did not understand the fishing industry and never had any real intent of being there. Maybe he never understood how it got there in the first place.

What happens after that, when you bring those two partners together, obviously it makes for a struggle to take this plant and make it go ahead and bring sustainable employment to those communities. So, it has been a hard road for those people to get where they are. It has not been a well-planned road. In many cases it has been just one struggle after the other. All those things, I suppose, would not have happened if those people in the Black Duck Cove area had not become so involved with their livelihoods, because they were one group of people who went from one fishery to the other without a stop. They were involved in their plant. There were right there from day one, and they knew what was going on. They knew it was a struggle. They knew it was not happening in (inaudible), but they were there. They did not sit back and let things happen, and if they had, I am sure Black Duck Cove would not be a problem today, because that many more people would have been gone and there would have been no plant and there would not have been any hope.

The same is pretty much what happened in Brig Bay which is just next door. They got up and they left. Their licence was gone. There was a whole group of communities. You see places like Bird Cove, not half the size it once was, because the fishery was what sustained it. I suppose the interesting thing is to go out there and people - I have heard the Minister of Fisheries say that, you know -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lots of good roads up there.

MR. YOUNG: Oh, I have lots of good roads. I should have good roads. I do not think I am going to get any funding for this year.

One of the things I certainly have to talk about is the fishery, because it is what has been the driving force behind me. But I found myself being critic for Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and I have been in the tourism industry.

MR. TAYLOR: How long have you been in the tourism industry anyway?

MR. YOUNG: I do not know. Too long I think.

MR. J. BYRNE: What do they do to promote tourism up there, anything?

MR. YOUNG: To promote tourism, they have done special celebrations. I suppose I have been among many other people who have spoken out somewhat against special celebrations. One of the things that I found, if you are in a business, in any industry, you have to understand that you have to go out there and be on a sustainable basis. You have to invest piece by piece and see that all the pieces are put together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: One of the things about special celebrations is that they do not seem to do that. It gives an opportunity for a lot of politicking to go on, I suppose, and things getting done that are not in the best interests and sound investments.

I think the Norstead celebrations is a very good example. I know that a lot of business on the Viking Trail, after all the investment that was made there, had not seen an increase. You would think that with that kind of investment, almost any tourism operator on that course, and every tourism operator, of course, would have seen -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. YOUNG: Then again, special celebrations are temporary, and I think that it has not been a policy that has not worked well. I think you are going to see this summer, when you go out there and have a celebration, that is not as broad based and not as extensive as the Viking celebrations. I do not think it is going to attract the people to this Province as the Viking celebrations did, and I do not think it will bring them to places where they are needed. The Marconi celebrations will bring them to St. John's and the Avalon Peninsula. The traditional investment that we have out there, the Viking Trail on the West Coast, we know has been a great market place to go out and market, and that is not being marketed this year. With this void, without its continuation, you are going to see a lot of difficult times for the operators on the West Coast.

MR. J. BYRNE: Got any long-term plans for tourism (inaudible)?

MR. YOUNG: I think the long-term plan for tourism is the only thing that is going to take tourism, and take this, into a different arena than we have today. I think we will keep meddling with tourism this way, and I do not think we will ever hit the hump and get over it, where tourism will take us to where we need to go.

I know from being in the industry that many of our properties and attractions in rural Newfoundland cannot develop the way they are going now, to the point where they will be solid and sound attractions and that they will be sound properties. Because, when you look at the tourism industry and you look at where we went to try to build the tourism industry, it was in places where other industries, such as the fisheries, have put a stable base there.

I think tourism is something that can go out there and add on to a base, such as the fishery, forestry and those areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. YOUNG: It can be something, but it cannot alone in Newfoundland, I do not think, go out there and we can have towns that will just live of tourism. I think it is impossible, but sometimes I think in our approach and how we do it, it is almost as if we talk, when we sit and debate, and wonder what we are going to do, as if tourism in itself will offer a solution to some of those communities.

One of the other things that I would like to point out is that when it is time when you go out and do that, it cannot, on its own, do it because of the infrastructure like our roads and water and sewer. Our communities are so poor that they cannot afford to have those things. Why would I want to leave wherever, if I can afford to come to places like Plum Point or Hawkes Bay or whatever. I like to go places with safe drinking water, but you do not want to see sewer running in the ditches. Those are things that we are offering, in many cases, when we are putting attractions right next door that I know the tourists do not want to see. They want to come to a place that is clean.

Yes, we have the people, we have the culture, we have the scenery, we have all those things, but it is the tidbits in between, such as the water and sewer and the small developments that they have come accustomed to in their small parks. They would like to see some kind of things there. We cannot offer that at the rate that we are going now and the kind of environment in which we are putting it together.

Norstead, I suppose, was a very good example because it was such an investment; and to go out there one year later and to have such difficulties. To be able to find the money - there was $1.8 million invested in Norstead and then just one year later to have such great difficulty to find $100,000 to have a continuation for just the first year. Can you imagine what years three and five will be, if we just do not have the expectations? Many times we have gone out there and we have -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is all about long-term planning.

MR. YOUNG: It is all about long-term planning? It is all about short term. From day one there is nowhere to go, as it goes. I do not think we did with Norstead. I basically know how it got on the table. It should have never been on the table because the support was not there for it, other than at the very top.

Once again, I think, when anything comes from the very top it gives a - this is a good example of why it should not come from the very top, because the people who are in the association and whatnot want to go out there and have something that was more broad based; because the membership of the Viking Trail Tourism Association is something that is very broad based. Yet, as it goes, we were pretty much overruled. I was there. I knew the vice-president, who was a very good friend of mine. I was out many times, to and from meetings, and I would ask him what was happening. He had no idea. It was not just myself. I did not take an executive position, but a friend of mine did. Sometimes I doubted myself in being able to understand or to know exactly what was going on, but when someone on the executive, as vice-president, and does not know what is happening because maybe the Premier has not told him until they have gone to a meeting and are coming back, it is a very poor way of developing the infrastructure that we need for the tourism industry.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) woodcutters, do you have any problems?

MR. YOUNG: Woodcutters, I do not think we have any problem up there. I think, when it comes to the forestry industry -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. YOUNG: We will go to forestry first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Forestry is, I guess, an industry that has been (inaudible). Mechanical harvesters in my district have been an issue, and we have seen a town practically fade away, a very prosperous town to the forest industry, but because of the change and the mechanical harvesters, and how we manage our forestry on the needs of maybe one large company such as Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, we have seen where we have gone into an overcut situation in that we are out there and we look at the needs and we just go further and further. As I was involved in that industry, to me it just became -

AN HON. MEMBER: No silviculture plan.

MR. YOUNG: They have no plan for the future at all. It seems as if Corner Brook Pulp and Paper have an end in sight and I think, if they get there as fast as they can, that would be fine. They have not wanted to have it sustainable in the parameters that we have here now. They know there are very sensitive areas in this Province.

I think the way they can get there is by having the small contractor and what not ahead of them. I think they have been doing very good by managing the resource that way, and that they have pushed into areas because they have been able to push the local people ahead of them. At the same time, our communities are dying because they know that it is more difficult to push and this is coming back to them because they are going into areas that are further and further away. Naturally, it is the small contractor who takes the cut because the price is there; it is set as it goes.

You see, many of those people they have no choice because they have gone in debt so much that they just cannot back out until they declare bankruptcy. The same in the forestry industry as in the fishing industry. They do not want to head to Alberta any faster than they have to, but it seems like it is the only option eventually.

When it comes to education, I must say that it is something that we are very proud of on the Northern Peninsula. We have some very good people there when it comes to our education. One of the examples, I suppose, that I have used is Port Saunders, Roncalli Central High. They have been there. Of all things, now they have a radio station. They have been recognized province-wide for the initiatives that they have been doing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you.

I just wanted to mention one individual. I suppose, by leaving out so many, I do not know what is going to happen. When I talk about Port Saunders, the radio station, and the IT sector and the developments in there, I know it has an association with a gentlemen called Don Tulk. He has been an exceptional individual when it comes to that school in the region. I know the first time we went to get anything done in the IT sector, that was the man we went to. I think he has been largely responsible for the movement ahead on the Northern Peninsula in this area.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the amendment, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division. Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Harvey Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. French; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Young; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

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

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Finance and 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 Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Joyce; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; the hon. the Minister of Labour; the hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Environment; Mr. Mercer; Ms. Jones; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Ross Wiseman.

Mr. Speaker, there are fourteen yeas and twenty-two nays.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

Again, before we go back to the main motion, I just want to remind all hon. members about our own Standing Orders which indicate to members the conduct when a question is being put. Standing Order 7.(2) says, "When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance." - whatsoever. I ask hon. members, again, to adhere to our own Standing Orders when we are dealing with motions and questions in this House.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand that earlier on today there was a vote on what time the House should adjourn. I believe that the members of the NDP voted with the government. It was a standing vote and I understand that their vote may not have been recorded. I just ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Clerk would perhaps take a look and see if that were the case. If they were not recorded, could we have them recorded?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi, to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point raised by the bed head opposite, there was a vote taken a little earlier in which the motion was whether or not we would continue beyond 5:30 p.m. in order to have an opportunity to vote on the vote for non-confidence later on this evening. We did, in fact, support the motion and the notion of continuing on tonight so that we could continue with this debate and vote as we just did in the non-confidence motion. We were standing over here when the vote was being taken, but I understand that we were not seen by the Table and were not counted. I think it would be appropriate that the record would show that the Member for Labrador West and I voted in the affirmative on that motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, I understand what the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has indicated is correct and the Clerk has informed me that the vote will be recorded as such.

We are now back to the main motion: Motion 1, the Budget Debate.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand tonight to say a few words on the Budget Debate. It is strange that we are sitting here tonight because normally a spring sitting of the Legislature is usually strictly for Budget. We do not get into a lot of strong legislation. I think, as the Leader of the Opposition spoke about earlier, there was a deal put forward. We could have been at home doing more relaxing things tonight and probably have worked out a deal where we could have been out of here at a suitable time when we had an opportunity to debate legislation, complete the Budget Debate and then move on to spend the summer with, what we should be doing, working in our constituency.

Mr. Speaker, every time the Member for The Straits gets up to speak he always talks about the captain and the crew. He always talks about how important it is to have a captain and a good crew on a boat. I will tell you what is happening on the other side, right now, is a situation that causes some grief because there are two captains over there in that one boat. So by having two captains you are in just as much trouble as having neither captain, I say to the members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Captain Hook and Captain Crook.

MR. FITZGERALD: Now the captain that we would expect to be looking after the House here when - we cannot expect the Premier to be here all the time. The Premier is up doing his work; up doing and attending to the duties of the Province. Normally you would see the Government House Leader who would be the captain of the House. Mr. Speaker, the old buffalo from Bonavista North -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the fat cat of the Liberal Party, the bison of the Liberal Party still do not want to let go of the reins of being the Government House Leader and still wants to be in control. That is what we see happening here. We see a timid House Leader controlled by the buffalo from Bonavista North. I am telling you, as long as that is allowed to continue you are in big trouble. I can tell you that not everybody over there on that side of the House is contented to be here. Some of the people that we witnessed in our own caucus room are now sitting on that side of the House. So at least one person - and I know his thoughts to sitting on those late nights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: I know how discomforted he was every time we had to come here and sit late at night. I know the grief that he had everyday when he tried to get out of here to go on and do bigger and better things. Especially Thursdays, Mr. Speaker.

The pickle book, I say -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do we own one?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, but the member who officially retired today and walked away gave the pickle book to the right person. I am not going to say anything else because I consider the member my good friend. He knows what I am talking about, that he gave it to the right person. I think he knew that but he did it in a kind way, he signed it and passed it over to him.

Anyway, I am going to move on from that, Mr. Speaker. I was driving along - it must have been on Monday I suppose when I was coming back into St. John's. I had the CBC news on and I heard this news flash, and the news flash was concerning the District of Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: The news flash was concerning the District of Trinity North. It came from the Member of Parliament who represents the riding of the District of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and it started off with the MP making this big announcement for Trinity North. I only caught part of it. What I heard was that it was going to set Port Rexton in a position to be able to compete and to be directly involved in the global economy. I said: My God, what is happening in Port Rexton now? This is big news! I mean we are talking about the world here. We are not talking about Bonavista Bay, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: We were not talking about the Bonavista Peninsula. We were talking about the world. So anyway, I kept the radio on CBC and my wife was complaining to put on a song or put on a jig or something. I said no, this is important. I knew it was such a big announcement that it was certainly going to be repeated within half an hour. So, Mr. Speaker, I drove on and I wanted a drink. I wanted to stop and get a glass of pop because I was not feeling well. I was stomach sick. I stopped and my wife said: Were are you going, to use the bathroom? No, I said, go in and get me a bottle of pop because I am afraid that I am going to miss the announcement, this big announcement. Sure enough, on it came; the big announcement. What it was, was a project worth $38,000 to put in a floating dock in Port Rexton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Now, just imagine! A make-work project for $38,000 to put in a floating dock in Port Rexton. They were going to remove the wharf that was there. The Minister of Industry and Trade, our representative in this great country, talked about positioning Port Rexton in order to be at the pinnacle of being able to compete in a global market. Just imagine!

MR. E. BYRNE: Then you wonder why we ask about the Lower Churchill.

MR. FITZGERALD: Then you wonder why we question some of the things that are happening. You wonder why we question government when they say: You are all wrong about this piece of legislation. We know what this is. You have to trust us because we know what is right and we know what is proper for you. Just imagine!

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to all the ministers (inaudible)?

MR. FITZGERALD: That is not going to come tonight. I don't feel in the mood for that, Mr. Speaker.

It is a situation where our own representative in the federal government spread such great hope when he campaigned in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, and that is why people voted for him. They did not vote for him because he was Brian Tobin. They did not vote for him because he was a Liberal. They voted for him because there was a ray of hope there, that they might be able to attract something to their community so they might be able to be employed and live where they want.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I want to remind hon. members that there was another occasion in the history of Newfoundland when there was a major announcement being made. I recall back in the 1970s -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who made it (inaudible)?

MR. BARRETT: Will Sir Gisborne be quiet, please?

I remember being in the car - back in 1970s there was this major announcement that was going to be made by Premier Moores at the time. When Premier Moores was making a major announcement the speculation was for a week. People expected that there would be an announcement on Churchill Falls or some other big project. When he came on the radio, do you know what he announced? Bob Cole and the action group.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at some of the things that people were led to believe in this Province, and when you look at some of the things that have happened and how it unfolded, can you blame us for being paranoid?

I have never met, and I have never been in the presence of anybody, anywhere else in my travels - and I have travelled pretty well all over Canada. In fact, I have worked in at least seven provinces in Canada, and everywhere I have gone - even since I have became elected. This is the ninth Budget Speech that I have taken part in here. Even with members from both sides of the House, when you go to get up to speak and when you have been allowed the opportunity to speak, there is nobody else, from any other province, that puts forward the feeling of their province and their own hometowns like we do as Newfoundlanders. We are proud to be Newfoundlanders. Sometimes when other people try to wonder, I suppose, or try to justify - or we try to justify to them why we want to be able to continue to live here in this Province, it is kind of hard for those people sometimes to comprehend because they don't realize what it means to be a Newfoundlander, to grow up in our own rural, little towns - or urban towns, wherever it might be - the friendship and bonds that we form. Packing up and leaving home is not always something that is acceptable or something that comes easy to most of us.

Mr. Speaker, when you look back and see some of the promises that were made, especially in the last federal election, and I am going to refer back to the EI program again because if there was ever a farce made out of people, I think it was made when the changes were supposed to be brought about to revert to some reflection of what the EI program used to be. Our own federal minister, Mr. Tobin, was the author of some of those draconian changes that hurt Newfoundlanders and Labradorians back when those changes were implemented in 1996, Mr. Speaker.

We can talk about EI all we want. We might say it is not EI that we want, it is a job. I am the first to agree with that. The people who I know would go to work any day and be willing to take a job rather than have to go to the unemployment insurance office or the post office to collect EI cheque. For the most part, if you work at a seasonal job in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, then EI, whether you like it or not, is always going to be part of your income.

Back in 1996, the changes that were made were so harsh to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and to other seasonal workers, that the Prime Minister of this country came out in the last federal election and apologized to Canadians. He said: I apologize for making the changes that I did to the EI program. It is only now that I realize how much it affected seasonal workers and their families.

Then there was a feeble attempt to change the program. I recall going around with another person during the last federal election, just on the tail of the present Minister of Industry and Trade, and when we got there - it was in Port Blandford, I say to the Member for Terra Nova. He was probably there with the federal minister. The people from Port Blandford were expanding on a wharf that is right there in the community, right in front of where Davis Engineering was. We had gone there shortly after the federal member had gone there. The people who were working on that particular project were on a top-up. They were getting $350 for laborers, $400 for carpenters, and I think the foreman was getting something like $415. They were happy to have it, but their concern was: What happens when this program is finished? We go right back to stage one again, either go back to the Department of Social Services or pack up, go away and look for a job. Even going to Social Services was not an option, because if they went there, they would have to wait sixty days in order to access funding in that particular department.

What happened was: We went there shortly after the member had gone there, and when we got there, they were excited. They said: Boy, I tell you one thing, I am certainly glad that this kind of a program is going to be over with, and I am certainly glad that the changes we have requested with the EI program is now going to be reverted. If we can only get ten or twelve weeks work, then we will not have to fool around with having that divided by sixteen. The other part of it is that from now on, when we go to work on one of those projects, we are going to be able to collect EI. That was the big issue.

I do not think that those six or eight people there from Port Blandford - maybe the member knows them well; I don't know their names - were led astray in thinking that they read between the lines of what the member said or what the candidate said at that particular time, and what they believed. I firmly believe that they put the pointed question to Mr. Tobin, at that time, as they did to me and the fellow I was with, when we were there. They were told that those top-up programs were going to be done away with. They were told: From now on, when you go to work, you are going to work for insurable earnings; and when you get laid off, because you are being laid off for no reasons of your own, you are being laid off because the job is finished, then you will be able to apply for and collect EI in order to support your family.

Mr. Speaker, that was last August or last October, when the federal election was held, and here we are into May month and still no changes.

MR. H. HODDER: It was November 27.

MR. FITZGERALD: The changes to the EI program, from what I understand, have already gone through the House of Commons. It has already received Royal Assent, so it is now law.

AN HON. MEMBER: The cheques are in the mail.

MR. FITZGERALD: The cheques might be in the mail, I say to the member, but the changes that people wanted are not in the mail. Yes, they will get their 5 per cent, which is a help, but it should have never been taken from them in the first place. So now you have people, and I do not know if they have seen the MP since. I am not certain that they have. I know he has not been down my way since. People are waiting to get a hold of him. They are waiting, trying to talk to him about some of the promises that were made, and the people who campaigned with him are held as responsible as he.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Who is running federally the next time? I will tell you what, if I ran federally, I would not say what people wanted to hear. I would tell them the truth. I say that to the Member for Trinity North, as I feel that he would and most other people would. I would not go out and try to get elected just to get elected and then turn my back and walk away and not do the changes that need to be done to help the Newfoundland families, that is needed right here in this Province. I would not do that, I say to the members, and I hope nobody here would, because we are all representing the same people. That is the shame of it.

We are not talking about a program here that is cash-strapped, we are talking about a program that has in excess of $30 billion in an account. It is cash-rich, and what are you going to do with it? Is it fair to take money out of that program and spend it in other areas in order to attend to the debt of this country, when you have a great need already existing for what that program was put in place to adhere to? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not, and I think that is the shame of it. I know members - I am not the only one who is getting calls on this. I am not the only member here who represents an area with unemployment levels probably in some communities as high as 75 per cent and 80 per cent. I will give you an example of how desperate people are in some areas of this Province. I have one community in my district where there used to be 160 people. I am going to say now that there are 140 to 145 people there in that particular community. Have a guess how many people in that community are fortunate enough to be able to get up in the morning and go to work, out of 140 to 145 people? Have a guess how many people are fortunate enough to be able to get up in the morning and go to work?

MR. H. HODDER: Six.

MR. FITZGERALD: Five people from that community get up in the morning and go to work.

MR. H. HODDER: Don't say their names.

MR. FITZGERALD: I will not say their names, but I will share it with you. I do not think anybody would want me shouting that out here, but I will tell you what: It is true, and I will share the names with you as soon as I sit down. Five people. Here is a community where almost two people from every household worked. Here is a community where people had their new trucks and their new cars and could go and put new windows in their homes, put new shingles and a new roof on their house, and take a little vacation. Not any more, Mr. Speaker. Three years ago - you can talk to the car dealerships in Clarenville and you can talk to the ATV dealerships, the sports places, and they will tell you the number of automobiles and the number of ATVs and skidoos that were returned to the dealerships because people had too much pride to have the Bank of Nova Scotia or to have Ford Motor Company or GMAC come down and say: We have to take your car. They were too proud for that, Mr. Speaker. When it got to the point where they couldn't pay for it, they took it back and said: I don't know what I owe you, but here is your truck and here is you bike. I have no other choice but bring it back. The calls I get today - and those people did not work all year long, but they were fortune enough that they were working, making $10, $12 an hour, working a fair number of hours in the summertime, I say to people opposite. At least when they were laid off they were able to collect EI, which would tide them over till they were allowed to be able to go to work again. Isn't that what EI is supposed to do? Isn't that what it is all about? Isn't that the reason the program was put in place in the first place? There is nothing wrong with that. There is no shame in that. I have drawn EI many times myself, as a seasonal worker, as a construction worker, and I did not hesitate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I do not need leave. I am just happy to take part in this debate here tonight. It is probably the last time. Before I leave I would like to wish everybody here, every member in the House, a happy 24th of May weekend; good fishing, have a good trip, see you back Tuesday morning.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

(Inaudible) my turn again to speak. Earlier I spoke on the motion of non-confidence and I would now like to spend the time that I have talking about the Budget. Again, I have absolutely less confidence than I had earlier tonight.

MR. H. HODDER: We were convinced.

MR. FRENCH: I think we are more than convinced now, Harvey.

When I got up earlier today, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the boat and the problems of Friede Goldman in Marystown. I spoke about how we sold the shipyard worth $100 million for $1. As well, I spoke about the ship that we bought from Russia, brought it in here and we have now spent well in excess of $2 million on having the ship repaired, and the estimated cost to finish the ship, I say to the Minister of Works and Services, is now estimated at somewhere between $2 million and $3 million to finish that particular ship.

The minister knows well what I am talking about. I believe that the tenders are being prepared now to be called again for an estimated $3 million worth of work to finish this particular ship, which we went all the way to Russia to buy. I think we took a group of people and flew to Russia.. The ship was on dry dock in Russia.

As a matter of fact, I, again, would like to ask the minister the question: Did we really buy the right ship? Did we really sail the right ship from Russia back to Newfoundland and Labrador, or did we, in actual fact, buy the wrong one? Rumor has it, Mr. Speaker - and I say this to the member - rumor has it, from this particular area, that we, in all probability, may well have bought the wrong ship. It is $2.5, Mr. Speaker, another $3 million. We allowed Friede Goldman to walk away with $10 million of our money for not living up to a contract that this particular government signed. They have gone away with $10 million in their pocket of our money, of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, $10 million that is duly and rightfully owed to this Province.

I listened to my colleague earlier tonight talking about problems in his district, Mr. Speaker. He talked about problems in one of his communities, the community of Black Duck Cove, how we have given away shrimp quotas and how the people in Black Duck Cove are now sick and tired of watching this particular product of shrimp being shipped off the Northern Peninsula. I believe there may well be a move afoot - maybe even as early as tomorrow - that the roads down there will be closed and there will be no more shrimp allowed to leave the Northern Peninsula, because communities in that area -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) cross the floor if he actually believes that that should happen; that all shrimp landed on the Northern Peninsula should stay on the Northern Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: I figured that when he got up, because that is his typical thing; he will get up and at the end of it there is no point of order. I do not believe that his question, Mr. Speaker, deserves an answer. I have heard him since this fall being asked all kinds of questions. The next time he gives us an answer, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it will be the first time. So I do not really get into that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Have you met with the people in Black Duck Cove?

MR. REID: Yes, I have.

MR. FRENCH: Well you should certainly know what I am talking about.

MR. REID: Yes, I have.

MR. FRENCH: You certainly do not need me to tell you the problems in Black Duck Cove because if you were doing your job as minister, and doing it properly, you would not need to ask me, you would have listened to the people that were there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will carry on. Let him go on. I will let him carry on now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: You fellas do more flips than the Ringling Brothers Circus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Maybe what I should do is loan you my glasses so you can see right in front of you, to see the biggest flip-flop we have ever had in this Province, the fellow who was going to bring in the Ombudsman act. There are more holes in it then enough. There is more flip-flop in the flip-flop that is being done on Voisey's Bay. Anyway you should stay at that.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to get into some interesting matters particularly in my own district, how again the same government last year, for my district, announced $20 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Perhaps we could hear the Member for Conception Bay South. If the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has something to say, perhaps he could stand in his place.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

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

As I said, I would now like to move to my own district. In the last year there was $20 million, supposedly - and I used the word supposedly very lightly - there was supposed to be $20 million used in my district. Mr. Speaker, I understand recently, in conversation with the mayor, that that $20 million is now $10 million, and I have been told that the minister was going to check it out for me, and I wait until today to hear back as to exactly how much of this money is available. He did tell me the other day that any municipality in the Province that availed of capital funding in the megaproject over the last few years will not be given any money this year under the infrastructure program. There is no money coming under the infrastructure program for communities or towns or cities that receive municipal capital funding, but what he did say was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. FRENCH: Well that is what he told me. You can call the man a liar, I am not calling him a liar. That is what the man told me, so if it is not true that is something for you to take up with him.

What he did tell me, Mr. Speaker, was that they would now allow some of these cities and towns to borrow money and the money that they have been already given, and with a guarantee that that particular amount of money would be replaced in next year's budget. The old fear I probably have with that is, what happens if there is no capital works infrastructure money given to us in 2002? Then a lot of these municipalities could be really left -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: They got what?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Well, I wish the Minister of Environment had had his ears open, he would have probably understood what I was saying, but you see again, Mr. Speaker, when you get into something and you hit a nerve, this is the type of reaction that we have come to expect. You certainly do not have

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Who doesn't have the nerve? I hope you are not saying that I don't have the nerve, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, because you better pray to goodness that you never find out just how much of a one I really do have.

So, Mr. Speaker, I trust that some of this money is going to be extended to districts like mine and other districts, but I caution everybody in this House as to what happens in the year 2002 if there is no money left available. I wonder where we will be left then. Will we be left holding the bag, and exactly what we might or might not have to do?

Mr. Speaker, that is an area of grave concern to me, because I know in my own area there are miles and miles and miles and miles and miles of roads that have to be done, that need to be done, that have not been done for a long, long time. So it goes on and on and on and on.

Some may wonder why you would be against this particular budget. That is exactly why I am against it. I trust one of these days, when we are in this hon. House, to hear the Minister of Work, Services and Transportation stand in his place and give us an explanation as to what happened with this particular ship that they bought in Russia. Five people who are doing repairs on this ship claim that we bought the wrong one. I believe that is an answer that the people of this Province should be given. I trust, over the next few days, Mr. Speaker, that is an answer that we will be given.

Again, you stand in your place here and you listen to colleagues from different parts of the Province talk about the road work and the road work that needs to be done. We hear the amounts of money that the minister himself said we would need in this province; I think, in excess or just about close to $200 million. In the year 2001, we have $18 million. When we take the engineering away from $18 million, might I suggest the money that is going to be spent on roads this year is not $18, but very close maybe to $15 to $16 million dollars. That is the amount of money that we have earmarked for roads in this particular Province, and it is certainly not enough to have the roads in this Province done, Mr. Speaker. It is going to leave a lot of districts and a lot of people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, again, finding that there is absolutely nothing being done in their area, nothing happening to the roads that run through their communities.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it comes down to the boil drinking water orders that are in this Province. Where are they? What are we doing when we go into communities and we stay in hotels - which we are hoping to promote the tourism industry. We check in to hotels and we cannot drink the water that is in the hotels. We check in to another one and we cannot brush our teeth with the water that comes out of the tap. I believe that is very sad and will do absolutely nothing for the tourism industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we have motels and hotels in this Province that are stuck with these particular kinds of needs, it makes one wonder, at the end of the day, where our tourism industry will go, Mr. Speaker, where our tourism industry will end up. When you check into a hotel in this Province and you cannot drink the water in the hotel - if you go into a lounge, and if you are a drinker, which I am not by the way, and you have a drink, there is no ice in the hotel to go in the drink. The reason there is no ice in the hotel to go in the drink is because they cannot make ice out of the water that comes out of the tap. We go in to another hotel in this Province, where we are trying to promote tourism, where there is areas of this Province where we should be working and we should be doing things and, at the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing being done to improve the quality of water in these communities.

It makes one wonder, when we are talking about pretty close to 200 boil orders in this Province, what happens to the schools in those areas? If there are hospitals or nursing homes in those areas, what happens to the people who live in them? What quality or what quantity of water are these people receiving? At the end of the day, really, what quantity are they drinking. I know of schools in this Province where they now use bottled water. Bottled water in their schools which goes to the children in these particular schools to use for good, clean drinking water and that, Mr. Speaker, is the only water that these schools receive.

I trust, as the minister again told me the other day, that the $100,000 that is going to be earmarked for water and sewer projects in this Province is spent, not because of where we sit in this hon. House, but in the end, that it is going to go to communities in this Province that have the greatest need and that show the need for water in this particular Province.

So, again, these are all items that I wonder about. These are items that I worry about. I talked this afternoon about our health care. I talked again, this afternoon, about Voisey's Bay and what is going to happen. You hear the Deputy Premier say: Yes, there is going to be full debate in this House and with the general public. Then you hear the Premier of this Province say: There will be absolutely no such thing. This is not going to happen. Again, you have to wonder who is going where and exactly what are we up to. I guess, at the end, it says to me absolutely nothing. This is an issue that is too important to see ore shipped out of this Province. Yet, as you know and I know, that is a matter that is under discussion now. A very large percentage of ore from Voisey's Bay - the plan is to ship that particular ore out of this Province. I believe, at the end of the day, we are much better off by leaving this particular product in the ground, Mr. Speaker. Leave it in the ground. Let it stay in the ground until it is developed for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when it is mined here and when it is manufactured here. The processing should also be done in this Province. No way should we be shipping this ore out of this Province without, at the end of the day, all the things that need to be done with it are done in this particular Province. Of course, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that is not happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Feed him again. Throw a scrap over to him, Bob.

MR. FRENCH: Who, Jack? He does not need anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: He needs to be fed again.

MR. FRENCH: Thank goodness he does not need anything. (Inaudible). Jack, I think Paul is trying to make you the size of me. Help heavens that you shouldn't do that.

MR. E. BYRNE: Bob, do you know what you should do? You should sit down now and leave it until the last twenty minutes. Give yourself a break.

MR. FRENCH: Yes. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for my time. I am looking forward, at the end of the day, to somewhere down life's road in this hon. House, to getting an explanation from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation as to what happened with the ship we bought in Russia. Did we really buy the right ship? Why are we almost going to $5 million to get a ship ready to use in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador when in actual fact, the $5 million that we spent - $2 million which is gone and $3 million which we need to finish her. At the end of the day, will that ship be ready to be placed into the services of many of the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador?

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I sit down.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I feel revived again. I came back after supper and we all had excess energy. Now when I look at the clock, and see that we are in the home stretch, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: You ate my supper. That is why you are -

MR. SHELLEY: I ate two suppers. Yes, I did.

MR. J. BYRNE: And you picked on me.

MR. SHELLEY: And I picked on the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Mr. Speaker, I look up at the clock and I see that we are in the stretch run and everybody knows that within just a few short minutes of some interesting debate we will conclude this evening and come back on Tuesday and start again. We look forward to that.

Mr. Speaker, I jotted down a topic that I thought I would speak on tonight because there is talk back and forth since I have been up. I am going to talk about the sealing industry. Everybody was asking me about my trip recently. I will tell you about my trip to China. The seal fishery and the seal industry. I have been asked by a number of members on the opposite side. We had some conversations with a few to fill them in on a trip that I just experienced a short time ago, just last week, to Beijing, China.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, I can get you a meal of flippers, no problem. Anybody on the opposite side of the House, I tell you now, who wishes to have a feed of seal flippers, I can accommodate them - and on this side. On either side of the House. If anybody would like a feed of seal flippers, I can accommodate them. Let me know before -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, you cook it yourself but I will tell you how to cook it, I say to the member, because there are not a lot of people who know how to cook it properly.

AN HON. MEMBER: I do.

MR. SHELLEY: You do? I am glad you do because there are not a lot of people who do. I hope you know -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I do not know if that is possible; to have that many flippers, I mean. Are the flippers going with the flopping?

I will get to my subject matter tonight which is the seal industry and the fact that the Baie Verte Peninsula, specifically Fleur de Lys and La Scie on the Northern tip of the Baie Verte Peninsula, are in the centre, what they say, of the seal industry. They talked some years ago - maybe the minister will remember - of making it the seal science industry centre for seal work in Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, there are many boats - and the way of the ice floes and the Labrador currents come across the Baie Verte Peninsula and on towards Twillingate. Of course, we are in the centre of the harvesting sector of the seal industry.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, some people on the opposite side have asked me for a little update on the trip I just recently had to Beijing, China; just last week for five days. This is something that has been ongoing for a long time with a company in Baie Verte called Caboto. They have been doing work on the seal industry for many years but in the last couple of years George Walsh from Fleur de Lys, who runs the company on the Baie Verte Peninsula, has been doing a lot of work in trying to open up markets in China. Many times when we talk about the seal industry and there are culls and slaughters and all the seals that are out there, most people in the industry would say that sounds good when you say it to solve a problem of overpopulation of seal herds, but if you want to take a constructive look at the seal industry and where it is right now, we believe and I believe, that a constructive way of looking at the seal industry is through proper market management throughout the world.

For example, in China there are 1.3 billion people. Specifically, on this trip I had the privilege of working with Caboto on a seal oil that is being refined right in Baie Verte at their plant. As a matter of fact, this particular seal oil is done with a patented process that is not done anywhere else in the world. It is done with a cold process that is patented by this particular company. This is not in a bias way or you could say it is in a bias way - but the seal oil processed in Baie Verte - and it will be proven because right now there is a federal study ongoing to compare seal oils throughout the Province and anywhere else it is done in Canada. I am sure and confident that the seal oil produced in Baie Verte will turn out to be the best quality seal oil in the world. As a matter of fact, the company that we are dealing with in China right now, a pharmaceutical company that distributes to pharmacies throughout China, has signed a Memorandum of Understanding that would look into the distribution of this particular seal oil in Baie Verte being distributed throughout China. Now, you have to remember the size of the market - and the Minister of Industry would understand this, with anything we do. That if you can tap into the Chinese market - it is a world leader, because of their population, in export and import. Therefore, if we can bring a product, a raw product refined here in this Province, shipped into the markets of China, it would be a significant breakthrough for this Province.

By the way, the significance of this particular trip, with 1.3 billion people - in the Beijing area alone, 30 million people. I seen cities over there with 5 and 6 million people that I did not even hear about. Imagine, the City of Shanghai with half the population of Canada! One of the interesting statistics, when I was there, is that before you buy a car in Shanghai you have to bring proof that you have enough land to park the car on. It is just so crowded. Anybody who has visited Asia and seen it firsthand, you know what I am talking about. To tap into that market, and to know the culture of the Chinese people, and how they are on health care and the health of their bodies, like ginseng and things like that. They are now just thinking about, in the last year to eighteen months, the significance of seal oil and how good it is for you. Some people in this House already understand. I know my colleague from Bonavista South understands it. There is a lot of research going on about seal oil. One thing in particular, and it is proven fact, that seal oil actually breaks down cholesterol in the human bloodstream.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I am telling you that I have known it for a long time. I said some people don't.

The omega-3 fatty acids contained in seal oil actually dissolves cholesterol in the bloodstream.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Bud, was on to it but he didn't get too far with it. He never got to Beijing, I did.

MR. TULK: Oh, yes he did.

MR. SHELLEY: Maybe he did. In a different capacity, I should not say that.

As a matter of fact, in response to that comment from the Member for Bellevue, I would say that when Mr. Hulan was talking about seals and the industry in this House. I always wanted to have the earphone in listening to what he was saying. I was always very interested in that particular issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: He did. I will give him that. It was something that was just breaking through. I have seen it first-hand now where the Chinese people - as a matter of fact I will give a little bit of detail -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The very significance of this particular trip, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, probably not. I would not disagree with that.

As a matter of fact, the more that I have been involved in the last year to eighteen months - this project in Baie Verte came off the rails for a little while in Fleur de Lys because of personal reasons that the minister knows about, but it is back on track now. It took two years of bureaucracy - we thought we had bureaucracy here - in China, in order to get a permit to import a finished seal oil product into China. It has just been concluded a few months ago. The Minister of Fisheries is aware of it, and probably in weeks and months to come he will be a part of that. It could be a very significant time.

It is the very beginning of something that has to be something very significant. I am just introducing it here tonight, as to what we are doing with this project. I am hoping that the plants -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, the minister is not listening. I am introducing this particular venture that we did in China. I am talking about the trip I was just on. Will the minister listen? The minister has to listen. That is what I said, if the minister was listening he would have gotten it. He was a teacher at one time; you would think he would have listened to the preamble and then it would all fit together.

What I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that this particular venture that I was just on, with this particular company in China, at this time, is just introducing what the plans are for the development of the seal industry, hopefully not just on the Baie Verte Peninsula but throughout the Province.

There are two points that are very significant about it. One is that there is a permit with this company to actually bring this product into China as a consumable good. Before this particular venture, seal oil was brought into China in either crude form or refined form, but it was always capsulized or bottled in China. This product that we brought in, introduced and gave as gifts this time, and hopefully they are going to have it on the market shelves within the next three months, is actually bottled - it is refined in Baie Verte, but here is the problem. Here is what I want to get at tonight. It if refined in Baie Verte to its final state. Then we have to ship it to Alberta to be capsulized, and then they take it from the capsules and send it to Ontario to be put in a bottle and labeled. Our hope is, if this market could open up, that we can actually bring the seal into Baie Verte when it is harvested, take the hide and tan it, take the meat and can it, take everything belonging to the seal and use it for feed and so on, and we would take this capsule, refine the oil, capsulize it right there in Baie Verte, bottle it in Baie Verte, and then put it on the shelves in China. That is the goal, and we are getting there. This company is getting there.

Imagine to be able to say that, to take a seal that actually is just a matter of feet away from this particular dock in Baie Verte. As a matter of fact, there were twenty or thirty of them there just a few days ago. Here is the plant, just twenty feet away from the seals, and we are going to take the raw material of a seal and actually bottle it, capsulize it, and put it on the shelves in China.

If we break into the market of China with the seal industry, I think it will be a major, major breakthrough for this Province. Because, like the Chinese said to us at one particular event that was there: Imagine 8 million seals - I use 8 million; some people say 5 million but, of course, we embellish a little bit, maybe it is 8 million - surrounding this Province. Like one of the officials said to us: Your problem that is surrounding you could be your solution, an industry surrounding you that could be a solution to some of your problems, an industry where you take the full seal, utilize the organs, utilize everything; you tan the hides and can the meat.

Mr. Speaker, besides China and the actual oil product and the oil industry of seal oil, the other breakthrough that is coming, I hope in the next little while, and I think the minister is working on this now, is the meat. The meat is going to be a major, major breakthrough. Korean markets are now looking for the meat. They are starting to turn on - what a funny sort of coincidence. The foot and mouth disease and the mad cow disease have actually contributed to the Koreans and other counties looking to seal meat as a substitute. The timing is fantastic, when we talked to some companies there that said they want to try something different.

Mr. Speaker, the seal industry has great potential. We should never talk about it as a slaughter and cull and things that you do that are not responsible. If we start to look at the seal industry as something that is positive, it is something that we can look to the future for. Imagine five plants around this Province tanning hides that we can send to Turkey, or capsulized capsules that we can put in Korea and so on.

Mr. Speaker, just imagine this. Sometimes you think about it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say, send to Turkey or send a turkey?

MR. SHELLEY: Send to Turkey.

By the way, Turkey is one of the leading countries in the world for the distribution of leather.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, I have been to Italy. We are going to Turkey this time.

Turkey is one of the leading distributors of leather in the world. They are very interested in the seal hide. If those things can happen, then we can talk about the seal industry as something positive and proactive that we can do with a sense of responsibility, in doing it in a way that we are not going to be criticized by either people within our country or people outside our country. That is very important. If we can, at the end of the day, take the entire seal, the leather product, the meat and the oil, and distribute it throughout the world, especially in Southeast Asia and parts of Europe, we can make some significant breakthroughs and we can do something positive.

I don't think that the way to talk about the seal industry is about culls and slaughters, although we have to address the problem of overpopulation. We still have to address this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: We might, and I am afraid of that. I am hoping we don't. I agree with the minister. There are times when we look out and see what it does with the fishing industry. Like one member said some years ago, they certainly don't eat turnip. We have to do it at a sustainable level.

I think that our argument would be better for a bigger kill of the seal herd, or harvesting of the seal herd, if we had the markets and so on to back it up, if we said that other countries were interested.

They have even gone as far as - and we all know, we should all know, that seal meat has one of the highest protein counts of any meat in the world. Imagine all of these starving countries where there is famine - places like Zimbabwe and South African countries - if we could ship that meat, the seal meat there, Mr. Speaker.

There is all kinds of potential with the seal industry. We just have to be more constructive with it, more forthright, and we have to do it in a professional manner. I think that is where we can make the inroads when it comes to the seal industry.

As was said in China, and it has been said by people here before, instead of looking at the seal population as a problem, it could be part of our solution. Maybe down the road we should look at long-term benefits and what it can do for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, seeing how we are into the stretch of it, I know you want me to go right to the minute. Do you want me to go right to the minute?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) twelve.

MR. SHELLEY: Go to twelve? I can go to twelve if you want.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I still want to thank you for Bud Hulan. I remember the first day that he came into my district. I visited Little Bay Islands, which is part of district. When I came off the ferry that Monday morning, I remember it was a Monday morning, the day of the campaign, the famous Bud Hulan was down to campaign against me, with his professor glasses on, and he knew everything in the world about the fishing industry and so on. When he got off the ferry in Little Bay Islands, there was one home there with a four by eight plywood that said: This Bud is not for you. I knew that I was going to do alright in Little Bay Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is when we started the phrase: smelter on wheels.

MR. SULLIVAN: He was more electable and marketable than the Minister of Tourism.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) marketable.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is what he said.

But, you know, I will just finish off tonight with this small story on Mr. Hulan. You know, the first time he came to Baie Verte to run against me, it was probably the first time he was there, the ski facility was just about to open. The ski facility was just about to open, Copper Creek in Baie Verte, of course. For years, we have had twenty feet of snow; the most snow in the Province on the Baie Vert Peninsula. Of course, Bud made the mistake -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Listen to what he did, now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, but listen. That is what I am getting at.

Dr. Hulan comes into town and his first promise, I say to the Minister of Industry, on the Baie Verte Peninsula was a snow-making machine for Copper Creek Mountain. Of course, up to that point we had lots of snow so everybody laughed that off.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has been gone away four years now.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, that is my point. I think he cursed us because, four years after that, no snow in Baie Verte. So, Bud cursed the snow in Baie Verse and four years after that we did not have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) great vision (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I do not know about vision - voodoo.

But he also made another mistake the first night he came to Baie Verte and we had our first debate, when he pointed at me sitting in the chair in the Baie Vista Inn, when 200 people were in the room and 198 were related to me, and he looked down at me and he pointed and he said: We are going to miss you in the House of Assembly. I said: That was your first mistake. Then the second mistake was election day.

Mr. Speaker, that was a different type of election.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) thinking he was more electable and marketable than - that was his first mistake.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes, the minister of Tourism. He was more marketable -

MR. SULLIVAN: I think he was told that and he believed it. They showed him a poll, I think.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Tourism and the Member for Port au Port, were they the ones who made him believe that he was the most marketable MHA in Newfoundland and Labrador, to make sure that he did not run in either one of the adjacent districts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: He believed it himself, anyway.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, he believed it anyway. I do not think it took much convincing, I say to the Minister of Tourism, or the Member from Port au Port. I do not think it took a lot of convincing.

Looking at the clock, we are in the stretch. We have lots of energy left, but we will call it a night. I will adjourn debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will adjourn debate. I have a couple of minutes to conclude on Tuesday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This House stands adjourns until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.