December 19, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 49


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a 116 page HIV/AIDS awareness and self-help manual launched in June by a group of volunteers dedicated to curbing the outbreak of the disease in Conception Bay North has gone farther afield than any of them ever dreamed.

AIDS advocates and victims of the worldwide epidemic are using the booklets across Canada, in San Francisco, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania in the United States, and a world away in hospices in Burma, in south-east Asia.

Since its inception in 1990, the Conception Bay North AIDS Interest Group has worked tirelessly to educate people about the disease. The manual, which I hold, Opening Doors To Self Care: Living With HIV/AIDS, was published with funding through the Provincial Strategic Social Plan and cost in the vicinity of $25,000.

The manual is dedicated to those living with HIV/AIDS, their families and friends, and those who have died of the disease. It contains a wealth of information and describes the physical, emotional and spiritual aspects of the disease.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. members of this House to join me as I congratulate the Conception Bay North AIDS Interest Group on creating an HIV/AIDS awareness manual so effective that it is being used in different parts of the world. I would also like to commend the residents for taking the steps necessary in educating others about the issues of HIV/AIDS.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to extend congratulations to two young people in my district. On Saturday, December 14, seventeen-year-old Christopher Smith and his thirteen-year-old sister, Katherine Smith, attended the annual Tri-Service Cadet Speak-off held this year at Gonzaga High. The speak-off featured over ninety cadets from the air, army and sea cadet movement from throughout our Province.

Christopher Smith placed second in the senior division of the speak-off, with his speech on, Canada's Role in the War on Terrorism. Katherine placed in the top ten in the junior division with her speech, My Most Memorable Camp Experience.

Mr. Speaker, Christopher and Katherine are members of the 774 St. Anthony and area Air Cadet Squadron.

I would like to ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Katherine and Christopher Smith on a job well done, and also to extend our appreciation to all the officers, volunteers and parents who dedicate so much of their time to our youth and the cadet movement in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to present my first member's statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the St. John's Clean and Beautiful Organization for its first-place ranking in the Keep America Beautiful Incorporated Innovation Award.

This international award recognizes the top innovative partnerships developed by the 500 Keep America Beautiful affiliates across Canada, the United States and around the world. To take first place in such a large group is truly remarkable. This year's award recognizes the partnership forged between St. John's Clean and Beautiful and the Canada Post Corporation.

Entitled the "City in Bloom! Campaign 2002" the partnership engaged the services of 150 postal workers throughout 2001 and 2002. The postal workers passed out door hangers, thanking residents and businesses in the city who take the time and effort to make their properties green and beautiful.

Mr. Speaker, this campaign, like all of those designed by St. John's Clean and Beautiful, was designed to recognize those private and corporate citizens who take pride in their piece of the city; and who better to acknowledge their efforts than Canada Post carriers, who see the properties every day?

Mr. Speaker, St. John's Clean and Beautiful is a non-profit, volunteer organization dedicated to reducing litter through environmental awareness and encouraging beautification projects involving the community. I take particular pleasure in the group's ongoing success, having been one of its founding members in 1991 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and having served as its first chairperson.

I congratulate the current chairperson, John Drover, for this latest achievement which is shared equally with the Canada Post Corporation. This award-winning partnership was acknowledged recently with a ceremony at St. John's City Hall.

I would like the House of Assembly to add its congratulations and best wishes for continued success in keeping our capital city clean and beautiful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform hon. members about a unique fundraising project for breast cancer research.

Polaris Industries of Canada has provided sleds and will pay the expenses of an all-female, cross-Canada snowmobile run which will begin in St. John's on January 11. This run is intended to recognize the large number of women who are involved in the sport of sledding and to raise funds for breast cancer research.

Three female riders have been selected from each province, to be responsible for raising money through pledges and other fundraising activities and to relay at one another's provincial boundaries until the ride ends in Squamish, British Columbia, some time in late February.

The three riders selected to travel the 1,000 kilometre section of the Newfoundland ride are all members of the Western Sno-Riders Club out of Corner Brook. They are Penny Brake of Meadows, president of the Sno-Riders and vice-president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation; Susan Tipple of Humber Village, treasurer of the Sno-riders and also treasurer of the Newfoundland Snow Mobile Federation; and Sherry Howell of Corner Brook, secretary of the Sno-Riders.

At various points along the way, the Newfoundland trio will be met by representatives of other local Snowmobile Clubs who will organize local fundraising events, provide celebrity riders, and escort the Newfoundland trio through their zone.

I encourage all hon. members to support this worthwhile effort and to give generously in helping the Newfoundland riders raise money for breast cancer research and to demonstrate to all Canadians that we really are the caring and giving people that all believe us to be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make all members aware of the historically significant opening of the section of the Veterans Memorial Highway, from Tilton to Riverhead-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: This highway has already been beneficial to the people of Conception Bay North area. It has made travel to and from the area much more convenient and is another positive factor in encouraging economic development in the region. It is also significant, Mr. Speaker, that the highway is named in honour of the contribution of our veterans who fought for the freedom we enjoy.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that all members be aware of the scale of the road work which has occurred in this region to appreciate the truly historical significance of this new infrastructure. Approximately $7 million has been spent constructing the 6.7 kilometre section of the highway from Tilton to Riverhead-Harbour Grace.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: The total budget for the Veterans Memorial Highway is $48 million, of which $45.5 million has been invested to date.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member -

MR. SWEENEY: In total, approximately 42 kilometres new and existing road -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Our Standing Orders indicate that statements that are made by members in the House ought to be of a non-political nature, and it indicates the kind of things that members statements could be about, like anniversaries, special events in a community. I think the hon. member has stepped outside that particular realm right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the early signs of joviality in the House, I think, is only a good omen, I hope, for expeditious proceedings throughout the day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the Resource Development Council and the Voisey's Bay Employers Association on the signing of their collective agreement for construction activities at the Voisey's Bay mine site and mill/concentrator site in Labrador.

This afternoon's signing ceremony is indeed another milestone for the Voisey's Bay project. We have already witnessed the establishment of important infrastructure at the Voisey's Bay site, including a new road, temporary airstrip, port facilities, and an expansion to the camp facility which have employed in excess of 200 people. The signing of this agreement now paves the way for the expansion of an already impressive work program which will continue to grow next year.

Mr. Speaker, the Resource Development Council represents seventeen unions at the Voisey's Bay site. This organization will act as the negotiating body for all of the unions at the site, making the negotiation process much more efficient. This organization also understands the adjacency commitments made to the Labrador Inuit Association, the Innu Nation and qualified Labradorians. Government has been assured that this adjacency principle will be followed.

Mr. Speaker, government has continued to monitor the activities associated with the Voisey's Bay project since the signing of the Statement of Principles in June. I am pleased to say that the commitments that were made by the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company Limited during the past work seasons have been kept. Eighty-four per cent of the workforce employed with the Voisey's Bay project were from Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a very impressive figure and government expects to see an increasing number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians employed with this highly beneficial project moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to join me in congratulating the Resource Development Council and the Voisey's Bay Employers Association on the signing of this contract. I am certain that the substantial majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who support the Voisey's Bay project have once again realized that this government reached a good deal for this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Statement of Principles, we find that under the heading, project description, which is under clause 8, it states, "During the various operating phases, the Project will create the following estimated employment levels: mine and mill/concentrator processing plant - 400 people; research and development program - 200 people; underground exploration - 85 people; the underground mine operations - 800 people; and hydrometallurgical processing plant - 400 people".

Mr. Speaker, there are some apparent inconsistencies between this Statement of Principles and the final document, the binding agreement, that was recently entered into. We only hope, and I am sure all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians only hope, that the real figures are the figures that will closely resemble the numbers that are found in the Statement of Principles to ensure that there is a maximum benefit for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

With respect to the numbers of individuals working on the project, the question that has to be asked is: Why is there 16 per cent that are not Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Is it some of the design work? Is it some of the engineering work? Is it some of the highly technical work that I am sure would be there for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? So the question that has to be asked, and the question that I would ask the minister to, perhaps, answer during the day: Why is it that 100 per cent of the work that is available on this project is not for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? In fact, have there been opportunities given to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for this very important work?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to congratulate the parties on the signing of this collective agreement and to note that we have had concerns. My colleague from Labrador West has raised concerns, over the fall, about the carrying out of the adjacency principle as it relates to non-native Labradorians and the expectation that this collective agreement would honour those commitments. I know it is difficult for the construction unions to realize that their workers need jobs, but the adjacency principle has been recognized and we need to adhere to it.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Resource Development Council has good success with the collective agreement that it has negotiated and is able to ensure that their workers are treated properly under this agreement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and that it works successfully for both sides.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker. In the spirit of Christmas, we should all be on our best behavior today, as a special gift to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier, if that is okay with the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, most agencies of the Crown do not have any requirement to report to the House of Assembly on the discharge of their responsibilities. Yet, approximately one-third of these agencies have bank indebtedness of $123 million. The management letters that were provided by the Auditor General, or private sector auditors, listed the following very serious infractions:

Five Agencies did not comply with the Public Tender Act; two agencies borrowed without authority; four agencies did not comply with legislation; and dozens of agencies had instances of weaknesses in controls over capital assets, in controls over purchasing of goods and services, of access to computerized information, and weaknesses over collection of accounts receivable.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier please explain to the people of the Province how he can stand by and allow these Crown agencies to break the law and invoke inappropriate accounting procedures day after day, month after month and year after year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I very much appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition, and I can indicate to him, quite clearly, that the Auditor General named agencies and boards and so on. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask about a particular board or agency or particular incident, then the minister responsible here in the House will gladly answer the question in detail.

Aside from that, Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated, many of these same boards and agencies, while there is no requirement for them to table an annual report right here in the Legislature, they do table annual reports at their annual meetings. They are public documents. Anyone in the Province who has an interest in what a board or agency or commission has done has access to it.

Mr. Speaker, if there are particular questions, I am sure the ministers responsible will gladly answer them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the chief executive officer and as the chief officer of the Province, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province expect the Premier to be responsible and the Premier to be accountable for these questions, and I would hope that he would answer them.

Mr. Speaker, in an August 19, 2002 letter to all deputy ministers, the Secretary of Treasury Board stated, "that for many departments documented collection procedures for their particular programs did not exist or were obsolete."

The Auditor General stated in the sixteen Crown agencies there were weaknesses in the accounts receivable collection procedures, collection efforts were inadequate, and government should be more diligent in collecting amounts owed to it.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier please explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, what he plans to do about the $488 million which is owed to government, of which $260 million is deemed to be uncollectible? Will he continue to ignore the concerns of the Auditor General when our accounts receivable are more than our deficit of $473 million last year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that in the agencies that are there, the staff, and in some cases with the boards and commissions the volunteers that chair these things and sit on the boards, they are not law breakers, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a disservice to them to describe them as such. They do the very best they can, Mr. Speaker, and we appreciate and respect the views of the Auditor General in trying to be a bit more efficient year over year. We take the advice seriously.

With respect, again, if there any particular ones - because it is unfair to the people who run these agencies and corporations on behalf of the people of the Province to just say there are sixteen of them and they have poor collection records. They are named in the Auditor General's report. If the Leader of the Opposition has specific concerns about any one of them, stand up and name them like the Auditor General did and we will have the minister respond and give the explanation and the rationale.

With respect to the money that is uncollectible and has been written off over the years, maybe the Leader of the Opposition already knows that the $268 million that he talks about, the vast majority of that is fishery related expenditures and loans that were granted while the Opposition was the government, and have been uncollectible and are deemed as such. No misdoing, no wrongdoing, just that when people like the Member for Lewisporte were Fisheries Ministers, they supported the fishing sector because it is very important to Newfoundland and Labrador. There has been a moratorium since, some businesses have collapsed, the money is deemed to be uncollectible, most of it related to fishing enterprises, and the loans were ones that were issued while the Opposition was the government in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Eastern Residential Support Board performs an extremely important and a very much needed service to people with developmental disabilities; yet, the Auditor General reports evidence of gross mismanagement, inadequate monitoring and lack of financial information.

Mr. Speaker, the very basic obligations of any employer, whether within government or otherwise, is a remittance of payroll deductions. Would the Premier confirm that due to its failure to remit payroll deductions, the board has incurred penalties to Revenue Canada of $150,000 and $6,700 respectively?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, the issue that the hon. member raises is an issue of concern. It is an issue that, when we became aware of it - obviously, as the hon. member would know, these boards do have a certain amount of autonomy but certainly we work closely with them. These issues that are raised are of concern and we have been working with the boards to correct these.

Mr. Speaker, I think what we have to remind ourselves as well is that these boards perform a very important service. They are involved with providing a service to a very vulnerable group in our population. They perform a very important service. The boards themselves came about as a new structure that was put in place around 1998, when a number of existing boards were collapsed, and certainly situations like this, we are not happy when they do arise but we have taken the necessary efforts to work with the boards to correct these and try to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, while acknowledging the very important service performed by this board and other boards, the Auditor General is concerned, however, about the lack of controls, the lack of accountability, and the lack of financial reporting for these particular boards, and that reflects on this government.

Mr. Speaker, not only is this board doing a poor job in spending money but it is also doing a poor job in collecting money. Could the Premier please explain why the board, which is entitled to a 50 per cent rebate on all HST amounts that are paid up to the time the Auditor General completed his study in October, 2002, why the board has never filed for this rebate since its inception in 1997, despite being advised to do so by its auditors?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, again, these issues that have been highlighted in the Auditor General's report are issues that we have been aware of, and these are issues that we have acted on. In fact, I agree, in terms of the situation, it is a situation that should not be allowed to happen or continue. When these things do come to light - again, as I have said repeatedly in this House in my capacity as minister with responsibility for a number of these areas - we cannot micromanage. This is why we have boards that operate under us in delivering these services, and we have to depend on these boards to do that. We provide them with the resources and we do trust that they are going to deliver the service on behalf of the constituents, or the people of the Province, as they have been mandated to do so.

When situations do arise, we do move to try to correct these, and this is another instance where, in fact, action has been taken, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, nobody expects government to micromanage, but they do expect them to manage, and that is why the health care system has the problems that it has. It is not only lack of resources -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: - it is also due to very, very poor fiscal management.

Mr. Speaker, in January of last year, the position of general manager and financial manager of the board was vacated at an annual salary of $60,000. The following month, the same board hired a consultant to carry out the same duties, at an annual cost of $140,000, nearly two-and-a-half times the original salary.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier agree that this is a blatant waste of money for over two years? Would he now instruct the Minister of Health to follow the recommendations of the Auditor General and fill this position immediately?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say that I certainly follow with interest this line of questioning. I do take seriously the issues that are raised. It is rather interesting that repeatedly in this House, in the last session of the House, on a daily basis, I had the hon. members opposite rising and questioning an operational review that we had funded, and condemning the fact that we were spending the money to do an operational review to try to ensure that funds that we were making available to our Health Care Corporation were being properly spent.

Just recently, within the last couple of days, the Health critic has been on his feet criticizing the fact that we have, within the last few days, again commissioned an amount of money to bring in someone with some outside expertise to work with our people to deal with the various sorts of issues that the hon. member is now referencing.

Mr. Speaker, it begs the question: Which way does the Opposition want it? One day they are up talking on one side of their face, another day the other. I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition today, which side is it? Which way do you want it? You cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is just basic good fiscal management, good common sense. Anyone would understand, that if you can save $140,000 by putting back a $60,000 salary, that is just very simple. I do not need a consultant to tell me that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General says that there are no policies in place for selection of housing units, funding, rental terms or conflict of interest situations. Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has indicated that, as a result of participating on a committee, a member became aware of the board's intention to rent a housing unit, and subsequently the spouse of that member purchased that unit and entered into a rental agreement with the board.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not agree that the purchase of a property with inside information, and the subsequent rental of that property to a government for five years at $28,200 a year, is very inappropriate behaviour and activity for a government board?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, in terms of the issue that the hon. member references, indeed, we have concerns when issues of this nature come to light and are brought to our attention. Again, I have to say, as I indicated in an earlier response to an earlier question, in fact that with these boards - and they do operate similarly to a lot of the governance which we have in a number of our areas in the Province in delivering of health care services - that we do provide these boards with a certain amount of autonomy. We do, certainly, have expectations for them and we do what them to deliver the service that they are mandated to do on behalf of the constituents for whom they are providing the service. Situations do arise and when they do arise we try to deal with them.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is wrong to (inaudible) from the point of view that, in fact, all is out of control here, that nothing good is happening in these areas. The real fear that I have when we get into that situation - not that we do not need to ask the questions and demand accountability because I certainly expect it of my officials and I think we need to provide it on behalf of the people of the Province. I think we have to be very careful that we do not undermine the good work that these boards are doing on behalf of the people of the Province, because it is an important service. It is a service that has been put in place to try to deal with a very real issue out there. The model that we have right now, as I said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - is fairly recent, going back to 1998, and was put in place to try to deal with a very real concern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this type of behavior would not be tolerated in the private sector and it should not be tolerated in the public sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that the Eastern Residential Support Board purchased a house for $92,500, spent $22,000 on renovations, and then sold the House two years later for $65,000, or approximately half of its original cost?

SOME HOME MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, again, as I have repeatedly stated in response to questions here in the House with regard to the operations of the board and, indeed, situations like this that, when we become aware of them, we have asked the questions as well, we are not happy when situations of this nature arise. I have to repeat that this minister, nor any department, has the ability to micro-manage. When we are aware of concerns we certainly act on them and try to see that they are redressed. That is what we are doing in this particular situation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

During the four year period, from 1993 to 1996, under Clyde Wells, special warrants were issued totaling $169.3 million, of which 21.8 per cent were issued in March. During the last four years, since the last election, special warrants were issued for $319.3 million, of which 86.4 per cent were issued in March. It is unusual, Mr. Speaker, that emergencies or urgencies now occur almost exclusively in March.

Will the minister agree with the Auditor General's reason, that this happens because government tends to produce whatever financial result it desires?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the way government spending occurs is that there is a certain amount of money allocated in a budget, you watch it over a period of time, and if you know, say in January or February, that you are coming close to the end of what you need to provide your service and that service is required to carry on - oftentimes March, as everybody knows, is the end of our fiscal year, so it often arises in March that we actually need to put more money into a program for a continuation of a service, whether it is the drug program, Income Support Program, or whatever it is. That is how it works.

The only thing that I can honestly confirm here is that, very often the budget will come to a conclusion sometimes sooner than March, sometimes in the early weeks of March or the last of February. Then, it goes through the process. It has to go through Cabinet, at which point a decision is made based on an urgent need put forward by the ministers of the various departments. It comes to Cabinet and it is either approved or rejected for additional funding which then follows the format of special warrants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we follow that reasoning, there have been two by-elections this year for $160,000 unbudgeted, we should expect a Supplementary Supply Bill here to this House today to approve that before the House adjourns.

A special warrant was issued for $720,000 for court recording that was considered urgent by government. A special warrant was issued on March 15, 2002. According to the Department of Justice, breakdowns and malfunctions were occurring throughout 2001-2002 and some equipment was held together with rubber bands and tape.

I want to ask the minister: Why was it urgent to issue a special warrant on March 15, when this House sat on March 11, 12, 13 and 14? On Friday it was issued, and we were back in the House again on March 19 until March 22. Where is the urgency, Minister? A rubber bank broke on the morning of Friday, March 15?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: If you are not careful, you are going to blow a gasket.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Your rubber band is going to break.

I have to say to the member opposite, who talked about a special warrant coming before the House today, I have certainly looked at information, I have spoken with the appropriate deputy, and we are looking to try to find savings to achieve those necessary to get us through to the end of the fiscal year. So, we are not going to issue a special warrant to cover off two by-elections when we might find the money in the various sections of the Legislature. Members opposite know there are various sections. It includes the Auditor General's Office, the Children's Advocate Office and our own Legislature. So, before we would, today, come forward at your suggestion, I say to the member opposite, to issue a special warrant, we have to do due diligence and we have to look at all the money and financing available. We are not in the habit, as he would suggest, and obviously he would do, of writing a special warrant just because he thinks he might need it. We are certain we need it before we issue it.

I will further say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue from Justice, I had a request brought forward to me, which I referred on, obviously, to Cabinet, on the urgency of this matter, because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - we all believe it is quite important that the court proceedings be adequately recorded, not only for posterity but, also, for the actual procedures that need to be done -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - and we believe that they are deemed very important and very necessary and urgent, as the member identified.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knew that Bonavista North was vacated in April and Conception Bay South in August. How long do you need for due diligence? The end of the fiscal year - that is months and months you know and, therefore, you should have checked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The House of Assembly was sitting from March 11 to March 27. On March 26, this House, including the Opposition here, approved an Interim Supply Bill for $1.23 billion. Now, all of the amounts that were issued in that month under warrants could have been included in that Interim Supply Bill to be a part of the 2002-2003 Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Instead, government decided to break the law.

I want to ask the minister: Why didn't the minister include these amounts in that Interim Supply Bill and, thus, abide by the law?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Answer that.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I have no problem answering it. If you will give me the opportunity, I am happy to answer it.

First of all -

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer it truthfully.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, I take exception to the Member opposite for Ferryland saying, answer it truthfully, because every answer that I give is answered truthfully.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't say that.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I heard the member say it.

Every answer I give in this House is the truth, I say to the member opposite. You judge your own questions, but I will judge my own answers.

Further I will say, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will give the truth, I say to the Member for Ferryland, if you care to listen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will say to the member opposite that the Supplementary Supply that we look for is in the year that it is expired. The Interim Supply is in the new year. So, while we are pretty good on predicting what we will need in our Budget, there are times, before the end of the year, where we have to spend money -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) put it in the Budget?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The answer is because the Budget ends March 31, and when you go to look for Interim Supply, you are looking for the first three months of the next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right. I just wanted to explain the process to the member from -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I understand.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am not sure he does understand, because the questions reflect otherwise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The questions asked reflect otherwise, that perhaps he does not understand. Interim Supply is for the budget year coming. The Supplementary Supply on special warrants is because there was not enough money in the previous year to cover off all the costs. That is why we did it under Supplementary Supply. We did not break the law, as the members speaks. We did it all within the requirements of the timing put forward in the law and we followed it to the letter of the law.

Now, what the Auditor General would say, it is not urgent. We beg to differ.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Health care, putting forward the money necessary in Justice, in our view, was an urgent need, and we are the government and we made that decision to put the money there, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, all through 1998 and 1999, questions were asked in this House to ministers opposite regarding the sale of Marystown Shipyard. In particular, the record will show that questions were asked about what were the guarantees that we had for transferring the assets. Government said that we had all types of guarantees.

Mr. Speaker, in the Auditor General's report it clearly shows that this Province sold the Marystown Shipyard for $1. We gave $86 million worth of assets to a company called Friede Goldman for $1. We gave them $2.2 million more to operate it and, not only that, we did not receive any security that if it went bankrupt that those $86 million worth of assets were to come back to the Province.

My question is this, for the Premier: Given the fact of your excellent negotiating record with companies on our resources, how can you justify or try to sell your ability to put together any type of deal for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the Marystown issue, first of all, this must be a blast from the past by the hon. the Opposition House Leader because, as he is aware, there is certainly nothing new contained in the Auditor General's report of this year concerning Marystown.

Let's go back for a minute. The hon. member talked about what this Administration and this Premier might do in terms of a future. The Marystown transaction was all about securing a future, a future for the people on the Burin Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: There was a policy decision made by this Administration that the best way to go to secure that future was in a fabrication yard rather than a shipbuilding yard. There is nothing decided in that transaction that was contrary to what government wanted and intended to do. They were not in the shipyard business because there was a great opportunity with the Peter Kiewit people to have a new industry so those people could have a new future, a brighter future, and look forward to 2003 when you actually see the cutting torches working in Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, time for one quick supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Nobody in this House, on this side or the other side, wants to put in jeopardy the future of any fellow Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and to spin to suggest it is unbelievable!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this question where he did not answer it. Let me ask the Premier this question. I will ask it again. Based upon your excellent negotiating skills where you turned over $86 million worth of public assets for $1, gave $2.2 million more to the people of the Province without securing them if something went wrong, how can you, as leader of the Province and Premier of the Province, try to sell any deal to the people of the Province based upon what you believe is in the best interests of the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods and has to do with the Auditor General's comments on our $700 million forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, amongst the Auditor General's complaints, there have been no annual reports from the department since 1999-2000, no aerial photography in some districts since 1990 to determine inventory, that the paper companies have been allowed to self report and monitor harvesting with no verification by the department, that of the thirty-six five-year harvesting plans required to be filed under the Environment Assessment Act, not one was submitted on time and eleven have not been submitted at all, and that annual operating plans have not be submitted on time or approved on time.

Mr. Speaker, given this indictment by the Auditor General, wouldn't the minister agree that this Province's forestry management might more realistically and properly be called forestry mismanagement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the hon. member.

We have - and it is not only recognized by this Province but recognized by other provinces in Canada - one of the best forest management practices in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Having talked about five-year operating plans and annual reports, Mr. Speaker, every annual report by the companies or any integrated system in the Province was in on time. The only ones that were not probably submitted on time, or had some lapse in reporting, was by the Crown itself. Every other report was in.

The planning process, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the plans, the 1999 plan, was already out. The 2001 plan has already been printed and, in fact, last year's plan is at the printers now to be printed.

With regard to aerial photography, there are all kinds of ways of dealing with the AACs and looking for plans and five-year plans in this Province. We do not have a policy on aerial photography in the Province. There is a three-pronged process in this. You do a lot of ground work, you do some other mapping besides that. That is the type of system we use in this Province. It is not altogether different from a lot of the other provinces, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Based on our AACs that we have in the Province, and the recognition by other provinces, it is one of the best forest management practices in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the fact that the Annual Allowable Cut has gone down 27 per cent since 1985, and the Auditor General blames it on a failure of reforestation and silviculture programs to produce results, and under-reporting of harvesting by 150,000 cubic metres or more and overcutting of the resources, are we not facing in our forestry industry the same danger that the cod faced in becoming extinct? Is that not the problem that we face in our forest industry, the danger of potential extinction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, since I became minister in this department, and since we have been dealing with AACs and five-year plans and one-year permits and so on, that is one thing we are not doing. Every day - not in this House, but just about every week - we get requests for AACs, to increase the AACs. I get it every day in my office, to increase quota somewhere in the Province. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do it. It is easy to say yes. It is easy to be all things to all people and issue permits. We are not doing that, to try to avert the same thing as the member alluded to with regard to the fishery. We have an excellent forest management process. Our AACs are based on good management practices, good information, and there are other things to take into consideration when you talk about AACs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude quickly.

MR. WOODFORD: This was recognized not yesterday but some twenty-five to thirty years ago. We are addressing that problem and right now we have our AACs in line with a good forest management process in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

I would like to table today the Annual Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table copies of the Annual Work Plan Reports of the twenty Regional Economic Development Boards in the Province, as well as new five-year performance contracts for thirteen of the REDBs.

We are still in the process of finalizing new five-year performance contracts for the remaining seven boards. Their existing performance contracts were tabled in this House by the hon. Ernest McLean on December 14, 2000, and I will table the seven new contracts immediately upon their being finalized.

These documents will provide valuable information to all members of the House on the important work being undertaken by the twenty Regional Economic Boards in this Province in strengthening the economy in all regions of this Province in partnership with government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again to present a petition to the House of Assembly, and hopefully this will be the last time presenting this petition to that crowd over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

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

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is another one in a series of petitions that has been brought forward regarding a section of roadway where there has been a feeble attempt for the past four years by this administration to try to upgrade and repave one of the main roads leading into the Town of Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, at this particular time of year I am getting a lot of complaints from people calling saying that the road is in such bad condition that the operators, the snow clearing operators, and

the snow clearing equipment is unable to even remove the snow off the road. When the grader, or when the loader, passes over that particular section of road there are still three or four inches of slush left on the road because of the condition of the road, the way it is tipped and the way the service is put forward there through the continual upgrading, of having to put gravel almost in the centre of the road in order to make the road allowable for driving over.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this is one of the main roads leading into the Town of Bonavista. It is a route that is used continually in the summertime by the tourist trade going to that particular section of the Province. The only complaint I hear - people talk about the hospitality of the people, they talk about the beauty of the area, they talk about the services in the area, they talk about the service that is available for accommodations - the only complaint I get is the condition of the roads.

The Minister of Tourism talks about the rubber tire traffic coming to the Province. The rubber tire traffic comes, some of it goes up the Northern Peninsula, a lot of it goes to the Bonavista Peninsula, one of the tourism focal points of the whole of the Province. Mr. Speaker, as they go down Route 230, come up 235 in order to make the loop around the Bonavista Peninsula, this is the section of road that they have to drive over.

School children travel this particular section of road everyday in order to go to the schools in Bonavista.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: The people in this area, Mr. Speaker, have made it a priority. It is where they want to see government focus their attention on roadwork in this coming construction season. I ask the government to pay attention to the people's wishes and upgrade and completely repave this section of Route 235.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition to present.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative Session convened:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS eight Chancellor Park residents are waiting for the government to decide whether they will be displaced from Chancellor Park and from the Province's home care system now that their money has run out or if the government will instead step in to assume the costs of their care; and

WHEREAS these residents, who are especially vulnerable because of their advanced years and frail health, did not anticipate being left in this uncertain position and are distraught that they may be displaced from their home;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to show compassion in these particular cases by finding a solution that will allow these residents to remain in their home at Chancellor Park.

And as in duty bond your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the people who have placed their names on this petition, in particular on behalf of the eight people - and the majority of these eight residents involved were on waiting lists for a long period and they were unsuccessful in obtaining placement in one of the public long-term care facilities. They needed some care, and so they found themselves having to go to Chancellor Park. In fact, at least one of the residents that is involved applied for the single entry wait list in November, 2001, was approved in April, 2002, and is now on the list for 250 days, or more than nine months. So, basically, what they are saying is that in many instances they did not have a choice but to go to Chancellor Park, they have now run out of money, and there is actually a shortage of beds in the Province.

In 2001-2002, there was a projected surplus of 131 beds, when actually, in 2001- 2002, all 1,015 beds were, in fact, occupied and there was a long waiting list. In 2002-2003, there is a projected surplus of 111 beds. In fact, on October 16, 2002, all 1,015 beds were occupied and there were 166 Level III residents on the waiting list.

Basically, what the people who have signed this petition are saying, and the people that they have signed it on behalf of, is that many of the people involved found themselves with no other choice but to go to a facility like Chancellor Park. Unfortunately, they have run out of funds and now find themselves in this position. Basically, they do not want to have two or three moves -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Can I have time to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: They do not want to find themselves at their age, with such frail health, having to make two or three more moves before they have a permanent placement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker, Bill 21.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Continuation of debate on a resolution to implement Bill 21.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly want to rise today to add a few last comments, I guess, to this particular bill. We did spend some time a couple of days ago on this particular bill and, of course, my colleague from Ferryland has made numerous points on this particular bill. We will not prolong it for much longer, Mr. Chair, but I do want to stand today and make a few more comments that I did not finish a couple of nights ago.

Mr. Chair, actually, I was concluding the other night, when I ran out of time, the point on exploration, because that is what this bill is all about, exploration. For anybody who has lived in any area of the Province where they have seen exploration and the effects of exploration, as I have, then they understand it thoroughly.

In the late 1980s, when I was living in Baie Verte, and still am today, the flow through shares from the federal government encouraged a lot of exploration throughout the Province. As a matter of fact, I had just moved back to Baie Verte at the time and found that exploration had picked up tremendously. You could see the effects of it throughout the community. You have to remember something about explorationists, if you know them well - my brother worked with one particular company at that time - they are the type of people who go into the woods and they are hidden. They are the quiet workers. You do not see explorationists a lot, because they are under trees and rocks and looking. That is what their job is. It is a very quiet job and, for the most part, Mr. Chair, what you have to understand, if you know the industry, is it is a quiet job and, at the same time, they always have this hope that they are going to find something because it is a risky business.

The minister spoke about risk the other day and talked about finding these explorationists, who are in the field doing the work, hoping that if they have something to bring back, they are going to be able to excite somebody to fund them so that they can go further. Exploration starts from just trouncing around the woods. If anybody has read anything on mineral development and so on, even with IOC in Labrador, Tilt Cove on the Baie Verte Peninsula, Little Bay, some of these older mines, you will find through the history books a good story of the explorationists. You will find a story about the person who first walked into the back woods of Labrador or throughout the Island portion of the Province. You will find a good story about explorationists.

The same in this Province, Mr. Speaker. I knew in the 1980s, when I saw through the flow through shares in Ottawa, the encouragement for exploration in this Province. In the community I lived in, I saw it firsthand. The gas stations were busy. The hotels were full because there were explorationists from all over the Province. In that particular part of the Province, which I know best, the Green Bay-White Bay area, to this very day, if you ask somebody in the mining department, they will tell you that it is probably one of the most exciting parts of the Province for exploration.

With our history - and you just have to go back and look through the history books and come to the White Bay-Green Bay area and look at the history, and you will find out about Betts Cove, Goldenville, Tilt Cove; Tilt Cove, which today has a population, Mr. Chair, of around fifteen people. I have pictures of Tilt Cove that shows you where there was a bowling alley, a post office, buildings throughout. This was, back in those days, a very prosperous community and there was a great story behind that, on how somebody walked through the wilderness and found a rock or found something and that is where it grew from. The point being, that is where exploration starts. That is what is so important. Nothing else starts until that starts. That is the key to it all.

Mr. Chairman, we all remember the discovery of Voisey's Bay and how in this Province it started a surge of exploration throughout the Province, especially in Labrador, in the Voisey's Bay area, and how exciting it was, and all not just directly to the explorationists but the spinoff. That is why I call it the silent job, the quite job, the people fifty miles out in the outback of Newfoundland, you can say, or the outback of Labrador, who are just picking away. If some of you have read the story on Voisey's Bay, they talk about how they went over it and over it and saw this rusty rock. That is all it started with. Then, lo and behold, we see the development that we see today.

What we have to also remember is, because exploration starts it off, that is where we have to begin, the chances are very low of discovery. Over 90 per cent - I forget the exact statistic - over 90 per cent, it is safe to say, of exploration work that goes on turns up nothing. That is why it is high risk. It may not be high risk to the prospector of the day, at the time, but it is high risk in the fact that that prospector, who is just doing his field work, working on a very low budget, not making a lot of money, has to go out and he has to prove, encourage and entice investors to take a chance on what he has found. Because, after you first hit the rock, it does not all come into play. Then there is dredging, then there is drilling.

I remember all the activity in Springdale with the drilling companies that were there, hiring people all over the place. Anybody who was in the Green Bay, Baie Verte, Springdale area at the time saw the activity going in the last 1980s. It was exciting and it was spinoff. That is why a lot of times in this Province that particular industry is not noticed or recognized until they hit something big. To this very day - as a matter of fact, I have just spoken to an explorationist in my district right now who, hopefully, in the very near future - as a matter of fact, in the new year, has attracted an investor to continue work on a property that looks very exciting.

Now, I do not know if members in the House know people in the exploration industry very well, but to see these people and their passion for exploration. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I had a little bit to do with exploration in the early years. In my first year in university, I started as a geologist. I switched later to education - sometimes you wonder if you did the right thing - but as you met people in that particular course, and their love for the wilderness, and being outside, and minerals and everything, it is a whole new group of people who find this exciting. Their passion in life is to find that motherload. That is what it is all about.

When Voisey's Bay was discovered, talk to any junior explorationist in the Province, any junior company, and what that did - a lot of those were asleep at the time - it brought them back to it. We know, through the history of geology and the geology of this Province throughout Labrador and Newfoundland, that we have some very good prospects. I am excited because I am hoping in the new year we are going to here some great developments.

My area of the Province had the very first gold producing mine, and right now we have the only gold producing mine in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are very excited about that. Right now in King's Point, Hammerdown, they are still exploring in that area. Everybody - and I say this to all members in the House today, because I have heard some different things in debate and sometimes, I guess, rhetoric takes over and we do not say what we really want to say, but I have heard different times about us getting our value from our resources. I do not believe there is one member in this House who does not want full and fair share of benefits from our resource.

Now, without a deal on Voisey's (inaudible), that is an issue that we have spoken on and will continue to speak on, but at the end of the day every person in this House, I believe - I respect that - every member in this House wants the best value we can get from our resources. The people in King's Point today, with the only operating gold mine right now in this Province, just adjacent to their very boundaries, now, with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, have a request in to extend their boundaries to take in that gold mine, and they want their fair share.

The people of King's Point have been rational, reasonable people, who saw that a company would be next door to them, and right now, hopefully, they are asking a request, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for an extension of that boundary. All they are saying is that we want our fair share from the resource - a resource right now that is being mined by a company in Richmond, Quebec, that is mining there right now. Hopefully - and we all want this - we want the company and the people adjacent to that resource to live in harmony and work together in partnership, so that everybody gets a fair share. That is all we have been asking. That is all the people of King's Point, Rattling Brook, Harry's Harbour, all that area, are asking for. They are all being affected by the mining operations there.

That is a good example for the Province of saying to the government that we, as a people in the Province, believe we should get a fair return of our resource, something reasonable, that is fair. I do not think the people of King's Point are asking for something unreasonable.

I am hoping and believing and trusting that the company that is there now, that has been there in Nugget Pond and now operating and mining, actually, in Hammerdown, are going to co-operate and they are going to get together and we are going to work something out here for the benefit of everybody. The Mayor of King's Point wants good things for his town, the same as the mayor of any community in this Province, so they will have decent roads to drive over, decent water systems. That is what is all about. A fair resource - I think all of us in this House, and every single person in this Province, are just asking for their fair share of a resource that is going to be developed.

Another important thing to remember about mining, we have said it so often but it is a fact - because I grew up in a mining town - the day that mine opens is the day it begins to die. So let's get our fair share of the resource while it is ongoing.

With that in mind, because a mine shuts down over a period of time, that is why I say today and emphasis the importance of exploration, the importance of the person on the ground, the person in the field doing that exploring and looking for minerals in our Province, that is going to benefit every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

It is strange, Mr. Chairman, but just the other day I talked to a person in the exploration industry who gave the same analogy of the fishery. He said: The fishermen in this Province warned years ago about the negative implication of overfishing and the problems in the fishery. Today, we are warning. We are the people in the industry. We are the explorationists. We are the ones out there day after day looking and looking, so we are the ones who know the industry best.

Letter after letter to the government and to the Premier has emphasized that this change will be a negative impact on the mining industry in this Province. That is the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Now, the Minister of Fishers says no, and I am not going to get back and forth today with the minister. I am standing and making my points, and I am going to have a few minutes to do it. If the minister wants to stand, he can.

All I can tell the minister, or any member of government, or any member on this side of the House, the people in the industry -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is now up.

MR. SHELLEY: To conclude?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SHELLEY: I will get back up if the minister is going to sit me down. I will get back up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) if he wants.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Do I have leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: I will get up again and go another ten if the minister wants me to.

The point being today, Mr. Chairman, because we have made the specific points on the taxation and how much, and there were things thrown back and forth about 20 per cent, it is not 20 per cent. It is 20 per cent on top of 37 per cent. It is 57 per cent. That is the bottom line. To get away from that for a second - we have covered those issues - what I am getting to is the analogy that the fishermen drew to this, the analogy that the fishermen were saying back years ago: We know the industry best. Let us have our say. We know what the negative implications are.

Well today, Mr. Chairman, letter after letter, phone calls I have had over the last number of days, speaking to people in the industry, the people who are going in the wood and tapping rocks and looking for the minerals, they are saying, with no doubt whatsoever, that this will be having negative implications and ramifications for the exploration industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is either the government is right in saying that there are no negative implications, or do we believe that the people in the industry know what they are talking about, and there are negative implications? All I can say today is - because we are standing here today with our last few comments - the reality is this: This will be law soon. This will be law very soon, and I hope that the explorationists are not 100 per cent sure and that we will see other big major exploration developments in this Province. I hope that happens, but I hope that we do not have to come back in two, three and four years from now and find out that, at the end of the day, exploration certainly has had a negative setback, that it was a negative setback.

Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. For example, over the number of days of debating this, Bill 21, it has been called a royalty tax, fugitive tax, the John C. Doyle tax. It is a mineral rights tax. To really simplify it and get it down to this, the only difference - and they talked about how it is not a new tax. No, it has been on the books but it has never been a prospector tax. The fact is this: There is no net gain to the Province, none. The only difference is that you would be taking it from the prospectors and not Inco. Now, what is Inco? Inco is a major multi-billion dollar company. Good for them; we are glad to see prosperous companies in our country. There is no problem with that, but we are talking about a company who is going to extract from this Province at least - and let's be conservative and say - $15 billion worth of nickel. Now, I think that is the ovoid. We am not talking about underground. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars.

Mr. Chairman, just for the record today, I want to make sure that I made note of this, I am still not so sure that we are not getting full and fair benefit from the copper that is in Voisey's Bay, which we raised some three or four years ago and which analysts are still saying could be a viable possibility for copper development in this Province. So I do not know if we did get our fair share, which is an issue for another day, but it is something that we brought up as a concern a long time ago.

The bottom line is that there is no net gain to this Province. The only thing here to simplify this whole thing, it has been switched around. If there was no third party involved in Voisey's Bay, there were no prospectors, Inco would pay. Mr. Chairman, over the life of it - and this is the calculation I have seen; I trust it is accurate - if Inco was to absorb the mineral tax right, their effective tax burden would increase by approximately .48 per cent, and it would still remain the lowest tax in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Canada.

MR. SHELLEY: In Canada. So where have we really switched this?

I would be glad to hear the minister's calculation on this, that it is not correct. That is the calculation I have. I do not profess to be any expert on taxation, but that is the calculation we have. Less than a half per cent would be on Inco over the life of that.

Mr. Chairman, this is not about Archean. This is about the future of exploration in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is about all those people out there who got excited for Archean and everybody else who are in their industry, because they are one of very few and were lucky. That is what it comes to in mining a lot of times - luck - where you go, where you hit the next rock. That is what it all comes down to. In this Province, for people who go in the wilderness, it is a vast area on the Island portion of Newfoundland. Go out in the middle of Central Newfoundland where there is exploration going on as we speak today, and you will see explorationists out there in the field. Then go to Labrador, the big land, where there are so many possibilities, but all of those possibilities are going to slow down - hopefully never stop, but probably slow down - because of this piece of legislation. I hope that does not happen. I hope that when this is all said and done that the explorationists - and these letters that we have gotten over and over and over from different companies that are outside Newfoundland now looking to come here and explore. I will just give you an example of a couple of them today.

This is from Candor Ventures Corporation, which wrote the government expressing their concerns, which said, "As the President of a Toronto-based junior mining company, I must decide where in Canada my company's exploration budget will be spent. In that respect, I am exactly the type of person that you should be appealing to since my decision could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars ultimately being spent in Newfoundland."

Mr. Chairman, these are the types of companies that say, when they look to Newfoundland - they have been here before, this particular company. As a matter of fact, they are active here in Newfoundland right now, today. They are going to make decisions on tax regimes - sure, that is just an obvious thing for any business - and what the possibilities are in the Province. It is common sense. When they are telephoned by an explorationist or a geologist in this Province to say they have something that is interesting, they have to convince these people to come here and spend the money to develop this whole idea and then they have to convince their investors that this is worthwhile. That is where the risk lies and anybody in exploration knows that.

Mr. Chairman, Voisey's Bay was a big boost for this Province, no doubt. It is a big boost for the people in the industry. What we are concerned about - and we make no apologies for it. We have raised the concerns that were raised, specifically, by the people who know the industry best, the people who live and die by the industry.

Mr. Chairman, we hope that by the end of this day we will see positive impacts in the exploration industry and that this will not be a deterrent to this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to say that I am surprised to hear that almost all of the debate during this Mineral Tax Act debate has been about the royalty tax to Archean Resources. Almost all of the debate that we have heard has been criticism of that particular tax and very little on the overall affect of the Mineral Tax Act itself.

I want to sort of repeat, first of all, what I said the other night in second reading, that we get very little as a percentage of our provincial tax revenues from mineral and mining resources, our natural resource taxes and royalties constituting around $50 million, when personal income tax is ten times that, and when provincial sales tax is ten times that. Actually, income tax is twelve times that, around $600 million, sales tax is around $530 million and other taxes, including lottery taxes, are almost double what we get from our mineral resources.

To me, Mr. Chairman, that is what the analysis of this legislation has to go by. What are we getting out of our mineral resources? We know what Mr. Verbiski and his partner Chislett are getting out of the ultimate resource. They are getting 3 per cent of the net smelter royalties. Are we getting that much? Are we getting 3 per cent? I am not sure, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure we are even getting that much ourselves as a guaranteed return on the Voisey's Bay, in particular.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do we get from Diamond Fields?

MR. HARRIS: The member says: What do we get from Diamond Fields? I think we got a big goose egg from Diamond Fields, Mr. Chairman, a big goose egg. They sold that resource to Inco for some $4.5 billion and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador got nothing for its resource. That is the resource of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I hear the Minister of Finance talking about, we do not mind taxing Mr. Chislett and Mr. Verbiski because that is what we get for our resource, my question is: What are we getting from the resource from the people who are developing it, other than the jobs that we are going to get to dig it out of the ground and send it away to be refined and, hopefully, brought back to be smelted? That is what we are getting. We are getting the jobs to take our resource out of the ground and see it go out of the Province. The question then becomes: What is our royalty? If Mr. Verbiski's and Mr. Chislett's royalty is 3 per cent, what is the Newfoundland government's royalty? I asked the Minister of Finance that the other night when she was speaking and she has yet to answer me. She said: I do not know, I will find that out and I will tell the minister, if it is not a secret.

So, Mr. Chair, I do not think we are getting a royalty from Inco out of this. I think the royalty that we are going to get, or whatever we are going to get by way of royalty, is by way of taxes, by way of this Mineral Tax Act. We have to look at the adequacy of that in terms of whether we are going to get our fair share. The reality is that this regime is not based on the value of the mineral coming out of the ground nor is it based on the value of the final product. It is a regime that is based on the profit that the company makes after all the deductions, including a deduction for what they pay to Mr. Verbiski and Mr. Chislett.

Now, let me deal, first of all, with that particular tax and that particular royalty. My colleague from Labrador West has spoken eloquently on this a couple of times over the last number of days in this debate. One of the points that he made was that people come to explore not where the taxes are low. They are not exploring for taxes. Explorationists and geologists and prospectors, they do not look at the fiscal map and say: Where are the taxes the lowest?. I think I will go and try and find the minerals where the taxes are low. They go and try and find some minerals where the prospects of finding the minerals are high. We know from the geology of this Province that the chances of finding minerals are very, very high in this Province. We saw, of course, the find in Voisey's Bay, six or seven years ago, which is one of the biggest finds in modern history in Canada. So, people are going to go where the chances of getting the finds are greater, not where the taxes are lower. So, I think, that point is well taken.

The second thing that has to be said is that this find was made during this tax regime, that if what is being alleged was true, then this would never have been found in the first place. They would have been exploring somewhere else. They would be exploring in some tax haven. If they were exploring in a tax haven, Mr. Chair, they probably would not have found what is now the Inco find up in Voisey's Bay. They would have been exploring in some tax haven and not in a place like Newfoundland and Labrador where this tax was in place when the discovery was made. So, the logic does not really work.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I do not think we are getting enough out of our mineral resources. We are not getting a guarantee of anything from the Mineral Tax Act with respect to Voisey's Bay. In fact, we have done the same thing with this legislation as we have done in the offshore. We have a tax, after, on income and profit which makes us, essentially, partners in the profit with our own resource, instead of being, as the owners of the resource, paid upfront. That would be like, Mr. Chair, if you happen to own a commercial premises and somebody wanted to run a business out your commercial building, you have a commercial building or a shopping mall, and you are going to say to somebody: Well, we will not charge you any rent but if you make any money operating out of our shopping mall we will take a small percentage of it. We will let you deduct all your expenses, we will let you deduct all your costs, we will let you deduct all your taxes, we will let you deduct everything else that you do and, in fact, we will let you deduct all the money that you spent trying to find where you were going to put your store in the first place. Then, if you make some money we will take a small percentage out of it. We will undertake the whole cost of the building and putting the building there and maintaining the building. We will share the risk with you even though we are the owner of this building or this mall.

That is the analogy that I want to make, Mr. Chair, with respect to this Mineral Tax Act. We are the owners of this resource. We have seen it traded for over $4 billion out of which we got nothing, yet we are the owners of this resource. We are now seeing it developed and if there is a profit to be made, and I hope there is, but if there is a profit to be made we will get a percentage of that. We will not get a guarantee based on the dollar value of each tonne of ore that goes out, based on the dollar value of each tonne or pound of nickel that is produced, we will only get a share of the profits based on formulas that are spelled out in this act.

After all the deductions are made, all the taxes that they pay the Government of Canada, all the taxes they pay elsewhere, all the exploration costs, all the costs they paid to Diamond Field Resources, I am sure, will be part of the deductions that they make before they make a profit on this particular enterprise. That is something that I find abhorrent, Mr. Chair, that this resource which we, as the owners in Newfoundland and Labrador, are making available to Inco we are only shares in the profit, we are not considered to be in receipt of a guarantee of a portion of the value of the resource.

That is what a royalty is, Mr. Chair. That is what Mr. Verbiski and Mr. Chislett negotiated with Diamond Field Resources at the beginning. They negotiated a royalty. A royalty is a percentage based on the ownership of the resource. That is what the partners in Archean are getting, they are getting a royalty share and we are taxing that. We may, in fact, be getting more. There maybe years, and certainly the first few years of operation we may, in fact, be getting more from Mr. Verbiski and Mr. Chislett by way of tax than we are getting from Inco. That is a shame, Mr. Chair.

That shows that this regime -

MR. NOEL: How can you do that?

MR. HARRIS: How can you do that, the minister says. How can you do that? You can do that, Mr. Chair, because we are guaranteed. Mr. Chislett and Mr. Verbiski are guaranteed to get money based on the value of the product. That product will be produced for years without a recognizable profit for the Government of Newfoundland, to get its share of without any taxable income. The royalty that is paid to Verbiski and Chislett is paid regardless of profit, as part of their cost of production. Their cost of owning the mine and operating the mine is to pay the royalty to Mr. Chislett and Verbiski. We will get some tax off that because we are going to tax them at 20 per cent of whatever it is they get.

With respect to Inco itself, we are only taxing based on the profit that they have. So they could have no profit in a particular year, yet pay Mr. Verbiski and Mr. Chislett on their royalty.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister can speak on this debate if he wants. The minister is asking a question. The question is whether or not Mr. Verbiski and Mr. Chislett are entitled to their royalty payment whether or not Inco makes a profit, and the answer is that they are. They will get their 3 per cent guaranteed because they come off the top. Their percentage comes off the top and we get 20 per cent of that as our tax. But, if there is no profit, there is no income, there is no taxable income, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador get nothing. That is my very point, Mr. Chairman, that we only get a tax on the income, the profit and the taxable income that Inco makes, and Verbiski and Chislett get their percentage regardless, because it comes right off the top and we get our percentage of that.

There may be years, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Chislett and Mr. Verbiski are getting more than all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we are only going to get 20 per cent of that. I have not heard a word of criticism about that. I think that Mr. Chislett and Mr. Verbiski should pay their taxes, but I think that Inco should pay their fair share, too, and we should get a royalty from Inco, not -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have a couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman, to clue up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: In addition to our taxes on profit, in addition to our mining taxes, we should also be getting a royalty payment based on a percentage of the value of the mineral itself. It happens in Alberta, Mr. Chairman, on a barrel of oil. On a barrel of oil, the provincial government in Alberta gets something in the order of $4 a barrel as a royalty because they own the oil. What do we get here in Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, we get a percentage of the profits, after all the expenses are taken out, after all the capital costs are amortized, after all the operating expenses are taken out. If there is a profit left over, we will get a small percentage of that as our payment.

That is the same legislation that is before the House now; it is doing the very same thing to the mineral mining tax operation of the Province. This is even after the tax holiday that has been agreed to. In 1994, this unlimited tax holiday was brought in for the first ten years. That has now at least been capped to $2 million a year. That gives Inco a tax holiday of $20 million, which is what is paying for the Inco Innovation Centre at Memorial University of Newfoundland. So we have a tax holiday, a gift to Inco, and we have no royalties coming from Inco. All we have is a tax on profit and that is dependent on the profitability or otherwise of what Inco is doing.

I think that this mineral regime is wrong, Mr. Chairman. I do not support it. I support the tax on the royalties that Verbiski and Chislett are required to pay, but I think we should be guaranteed equally a return on what has been taken out of the ground out of Voisey's Bay so that we, in fact, have a significant royalty being paid to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador plus a tax on profit when a profit is made.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Impose Taxes On Income From Mining Operations Within The Province And On Income Obtained Or Derived From Persons Holding Rights To Mine." (Bill 21)

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of certain mining and mineral rights taxes."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 47 inclusive carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, Motion 5.

I move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that the debate or further consideration on the resolution and Bill No. 7 respecting the raising of money by way of loan by the Province shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, schedule or schedules, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to Bill No. 7 shall be the first business of the Committee of the Whole and shall not be further postponed.

CHAIR: Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: ‘Aye.'

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

MR. LUSH: Motion 2, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Motion 1.

MR. LUSH: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Motion 1, Bill 7.

CHAIR: Motion 1, Bill 7.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that in this procedure now we have agreed - all of us - that we will speak for ten minutes each.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Are we operating under closure? I would just like to ask the Government House Leader if we are operating under closure.

Yes, just to confirm for the record, that is the agreement.

MR. LUSH: I think the hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party agreed to that as well.

MR. HARRIS: I have had discussions with the Government House Leader and I think it is agreed that ten minute speeches would be agreed to for the purpose of this motion.

CHAIR: Motion 1, Bill 7.

To move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the raising of loans by the Province, which debate shall be carried out under Motion 5 and each member wishing to speak has ten minutes to speak, once.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are here today debating a particular bill that government has seen fit to invoke one of the strongest means at their disposal to shut down debate on a bill, and that is basically introducing closure.

The closure motion was introduced four times in forty years, from 1949 to 1989, and about thirty times since. Government changed - and thirty times since. This is giving the hobnail boots treatment here to push a bill through.

There are some unanswered questions on this bill. I am still waiting to hear answers to certain questions. The minister said in this House, back in May, in Question Period, when I asked questions on this bill, on May 8, she said, "I can say unequivocally today, to the Member for Ferryland, the only thing that we would spend this money on, if we are to borrow, and only if the interest rates are actually absolutely good for us, would be on the $93.3 million deficit."

I cannot see how a Minister of Finance would say - and she is not paying attention to me because she knows she made a statement that is not accurate.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I am in my seat, I am listening. Unlike the member opposite, because I do not happen to be sitting staring across at him, I am able to sign papers and listen at the same time. I heard every word.

I will say to the member, it is a very important bill. I know what I said and I will be very prepared to stand up and repeat it again at the appropriate time.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the Government House Leader - while I am entitled to twenty minutes, I am agreeable to ten minutes provided times on points of order allow me that extra time to speak that I lose on points of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I want an opportunity to make some points and I would like -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I hope we are under that understanding because, if not, I am fully entitled to twenty minutes on a closure motion. Each of us are entitled to it. It is only fair that if I lose some of the ten I agreed to, I should be allowed to get it back. That is all I am asking. I think the House Leader agrees, and hopefully they will live up to that.

Why would the minister say that we only going to spend, out of this $200 million - and she said on May 8, in the House: Only on the $93.3 million deficit. If we are only going to spend on the $93.3 million deficit, why don't you only want $93.3 million? In fact, the minister said in this House the first day it opened this fall, We are $30 million better in a position than we thought.

So why don't you want $63.3 million now, not $200 million? - if you followed the minister's reasoning. I know that we do not need money approved in this budget to retire debt. Debt retirement is a non-budgetary item.

If you look at statement 1 in the Estimates for 2002, it states $295,134,000 is the non-budgetary transaction that is not needed to borrow to pay a debt. The reason why it is not needed is because this debt was incurred through previous budgetary approvals. That is an accumulation of debt, that was last year's budget, the year before and the year before. That is why it is there. I cannot see how a Minister of Finance would make that statement, Mr. Chairman, to tell us that it is tied into the deficit directly. That is an erroneous statement there. I hope she gets that clarified with people in the Finance Department, because I do not see how that is tied, basically, directly to the deficit. There is a link, I might add, there is a connection between borrowing and debt, because if we have a surplus we do not need to borrow. We might even be able to retire debt. If we have a deficit, obviously, we have to borrow more. If the deficit is bigger, we have to borrow more.

When this bill was introduced for $200 million, the minister said our deficit was $93.3 million, and now it is $30 million better. So it should be reduced by that amount if we follow the minister's reasoning. We do not need to follow that reasoning because what the minister said back in May, in response to me in Question Period, is wrong. It just does not make sense. What does make sense though, is that she should know that government does not have the budget for debt retirement, it is non-budgetary, and I just gave the reasons why. This year it is $295,134,000. The Auditor General, I think, made reference to what should be a budgeted item; the $148,500 last year that referred to Pension Fund Liability. That is a factor that should be considered because we owe that money. That is a debt that our Province has to meet to put into those funds. That is something that is a budgetary item as opposed to an non-budgetary item; debt retirement.

We would not have retirement, we would not have debt, we would not have the permission to borrow to have debt, if we did not get budgetary approval. So all the budgetary approvals that went on in this House over the last number of years to give us that amount are already spoken for and approved by this House. So the minister was wrong when she stated that it is tied in directly to the Budget. Of course, we all know there is a correlation between borrowing and spending.

I have one very important question to ask the minister in reference to this $200 million bill. Why do we need the $200 million bill, I ask the minister? Why do we need it? Could the minister tell me and tell this House - and I think it is incumbent upon the minister to answer this one question on this bill, and that is all. She does not have to answer as to why she said something that was not accurate. That is fine. I know the answer to that, but this answer I do not know. What are the cash reserves we now have, Minister, that are going to require us to borrow $200 million? What are the cash reserves? If the cash reserves are sufficient, that we do not need to borrow it, we should not have a $200 million bill.

The minister should be able to stand here and tell us what the projected cash reserves are to the end of this fiscal year so we could know the borrowing requirements we need? Why get permission to borrow over and above what is going to be needed? That is a lack of accountability. We have been talking about accountability for the last few days. Since the Auditor General tabled his report in this House, we have talked about accountability. Why would you go somewhere and borrow money? If you were in business and wanted to borrow money, why would you borrow $3 million when you have certain cash reserves and you only require $2 million? Why would you borrow $3 million?

The cost of borrowing is greater than the money you are getting on your interest, on your investment, whether they are in Treasury bills or what type of deposits you have those in. So it is not wise to borrow if you do not need to borrow.

Before this bill passes here - actually there is a closure motion to shut down today, to shut down debate on it - the minister should be able to stand and tell us our cash reserves at this point in time and projected cash reserves. Because if she cannot do that, she is not being fiscally accountable, and not telling us why we need to borrow it. Why the $200 million?

I don't doubt that we need to borrow, because at the rate this government is putting us in debt, God knows we need to borrow. The reason they might want to borrow more is because our situation is worse than they are letting on it is. That is why. She said before, it is to do with refinancing debt, and she fully knows what she said in the House. I have her quote, and I will just say it again to find out if, when she stands, she could clarify that. She said: "I say unequivocally today, to the Member for Ferryland, the only thing that we would spend this money on..."- $200 million in this bill "...if we are to borrow, and only if the interest rates are actually absolutely good for us, would be on the $93.3 million deficit." Well, that is not correct. Why would you spend it? Why are you going to borrow $200 million to spend on $93.3 million deficit? If we have certain cashflows, the reserves are there, why need that amount?

The minister should know. I am sure her officials can tell us the amount of money that is really needed. It is definitely not $200 million. It was $200 million when she presented this bill. It is now $30 million less, if the minister's statement the day this House opened is accurate. It is at least $30 million less, if she is accurate. She must know, because today she did not want to present a supply bill to this House because expenditures we knew in April were not budgeted for, for the by-election. We knew in August there was going to be a by-election; $80,000 a by-election, $!60,000. The minister knew these expenses were going to be incurred and to the last day of the sitting for this fall we have not had a bill to look for extra funds. The minister said today in the House: It is not in the budget. It was not budgeted.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a minute to finish up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: One minute.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a minute to finish, to make up for the time I lost, that is all I will ask for.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, in response to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture there: Basically, the money was not budgeted for these, because they do not budget. I am one who has been saying we should be budgeting on an annual basis at least the average number of by-elections per year. Over the last several years, we should be budgeting for that amount. Treasury Board do not want to hear tell of that. They do not budget for it, so they have to try to find the savings within the budget. I really think we should budget for this, because now we are looking for $160,000. Maybe it can be found by transferring, maybe it can. If not, what this minister will end up doing, between now and the end of March, is going out and having a special warrant issued for that money. Do you call that urgent, when we knew in April there was going to be $ 80,000 needed, we knew in August there was going to be another $80,000 needed, and that is not included?

I say to the minister, I know the minister was on government business but it is an issue that was discussed. I am a member of IEC and it was discussed. It is a committee of this House. I am sure the minister has been briefed or brought up to speed on it, where she was attending government business at the time. That is an important issue.

Mr. Chairman, there are not appropriate addresses to people in this House, but I will leave it at that. I will not make a point of order, because it will only delay things further.

I will conclude and say that I want the minister to stand in her place and answer this question: Why do we need $200 million? Can you tell us what the cash reserves are here, now in this government, and let us know?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Before recognizing the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, I would just like to draw member's attention to a very distinguished guest which we have in the gallery today. To the upper gallery, I see Santa Claus has dropped by.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: I understand he is checking his list, he is checking it twice, just to see who is naughty and nice. I would just like to draw his attention to the fact that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation have not been good boys. Perhaps a lump of coal in their stockings might be appropriate. Welcome to the gallery, Sir.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, you have really thrown me off my stride now because, having been informed that Santa Claus is in the House, I am going to have to be much more constrained in what I say than what I was otherwise intending to say. I guess -

AN HON. MEMBER: Santa's watching.

MR. NOEL: In keeping with the spirit of the season, I guess, that is not inappropriate.

The previous speaker, Mr. Chair, does not seem to understand that this is not a budgeting issue. We are not looking for authorization to spend an extra $200 million. We are merely looking for authorization to take advantage of the financial markets to raise money at the cheapest possible interest rate if we have the opportunity over the next period of time. That is in the public interest and that should be something that the hon. member would encourage us to do.

We make great efforts to try to manage the financial affairs of the Province to the maximum benefit of the people of our Province, and we do a pretty good job, Mr. Chairman. I think the Opposition would be far more beneficial to the Province if they would encourage us in taking this kind of good management initiative, to have the authority there to borrow if interest rates fall to an appropriate level or if our circumstances make it sensible for us to do so. It is no harm to the Province and stands to do the Province a lot of good.

Mr. Chairman, this year has been a very interesting year for our Province. It has really served to illustrate the difference between both sides of the House. We have achieved the Voisey's Bay agreement that is going to provide tremendous benefits for our Province for decades to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: It has been opposed by the Opposition. The Opposition Leader has said, that if he was the Premier, this agreement would not go ahead. With everything that comes up, the Opposition likes to say that they would do a better deal than we are able to do, but they have not been able to demonstrate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: They were not able to demonstrate it when they were the government previously, and they will not be able to demonstrate when they get to be the government again in another decade or so, Mr. Chairman.

The reality is, that we have to raise revenues to provide the level of services the people want in our Province. The Opposition is against all taxes. They want us to lower all taxes. They want to raise all spending. Mr. Chair, that is just voodoo economics. It makes no sense and the people of our Province see through that. They see that these are merely political tactics that the Opposition are trying to use to ingratiate themselves with the population of our Province. Mr. Chairman, they are not going to succeed in doing that, because the people of our Province realize that we are providing good government and they support the kind of government that we are providing and they are going to continue to support us during the election that we are going to have next year, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be more specific.

MR. NOEL: Well, isn't that specific enough? How much more specific can you get than that, than warning you people that you are not going to have the opportunity to serve on this side of the House once we have the election?

We are going to achieve the support of the people, Madam Chair, because of the policies of this government, because we are for development, because we are for raising revenues, because we are for delivering quality services, and because we succeed in reaching labour settlements with the people who work for the Province. We have a great record of achievement that we are very proud of. I must say, Madam Chairperson, I am very proud to serve with my colleagues on this side of the House. We have done a tremendous job of governing this Province over the past couple of years in particular, under some difficult and trying circumstances.

We all acknowledge what we have gone through, but we have succeeded because of the competence, the energy and the intelligence of the team on this side of the House: the diversified team, the well-balanced team, the far better gender balance team that we have on this side of the House than you have on that side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: I want to say, Madam Chairperson, that I am particularly proud to serve with the women who sit on this side of the House because they are great MHAs who are doing a tremendous service for our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: I encourage the other side to do more than they have been able to do in the past to make sure that they have proper representation from women if they manage to elect enough people next time around to have a reasonable distribution of seats on that side of the House. We intend to do so and we intend to increase the number of women who will sit on this side of the House next time, Madam Chair. I hope that it includes yourself. We look forward to working together for another term, serving the people of our Province.

Getting back to the theme of what I was speaking about, we have succeeded in getting a great Voisey's Bay agreement that is going to return tremendous monies to our Province over decades. The people who need jobs in our Province, the people who need income in our Province, really appreciate what the government has been able to accomplish in that regard.

Madam Chairperson, we are hoping to have a Gull Island agreement in the next few months as well. As we all know, the Opposition has gotten on with their ususal fearmongering, poisoning people's attitudes about the possibility of having a deal, misleading people about what may be included in the deal, and generally making it more difficult for us to achieve a deal, a deal that could provide for hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits to our Province every year over a long period of years; a deal that will develop, create and build an asset that will be of tremendous value to this Province for generations to come. Madam Chairperson, we are going to continue to work on that deal, and hope that we succeed and provide that great benefit for our Province.

As the people of our Province know, the Opposition has said that if they were the government that deal would not go ahead unless they could get a better deal on the Upper Churchill. They failed to get that during the seventeen years they were the government previously. All governments of this Province have failed to get a better deal on the Upper Churchill for thirty-odd years now. There is no reason to believe you can get that, and it would be crazy to prevent the people of our Province from reaping the benefits of having a profitable and a good deal on the Lower Churchill development because of some kind of sentimentality, some kind of nastiness, because we have not succeeded in persuading Quebec to renew the Upper Churchill deal, which we all want to do, Madam Chair.

I have been working to that end ever since I have been a member of the Legislature, and before that. I have been working to try to get a better deal out of Confederation ever since I have been a member of the Legislature, and before that, and that is the case with many members on our side of the House, Madam Chairperson. We have a record of fighting for this Province.

The Leader of the Opposition would have the people of the Province believe that he is a fighter for the Province, but who ever heard him fight for this Province until he decided he wanted to be Premier of the Province? He was looking after his own interests throughout the years of his adult life, Madam Chair, when many of us were spending many hours and much energy trying to get a better deal for our Province out of Confederation, a better deal on the Churchill Falls agreement, and provide better services for the people of our Province.

Madam Chair, we stand on our record. We are proud to stand on our record, and the Opposition will see in the months to come that the people of our Province approve of the record that we have developed in the years that we provided the government.

Madam Chair, another aspect of the difference between the two sides has been illustrated by the Opposition's position on the Mineral Tax Act. Everybody knows that the people of our Province want government to ensure that we maximize the benefits from the exploitation of our resources. They want us to do it in all ways with all resources. We have now provided legislation to ensure that we get a reasonable return for the people of the Province on the exploration of our mineral resources. The Opposition want to do away with that, Madam Chair, and I think the people of the Province have to be aware that if they achieve the government, they have indicated that they will endeavor to change the Voisey's Bay agreement, perhaps put an end to that development.

If we succeed in getting an agreement on the Gull Island, they have indicated that they will put an end to that agreement unless they can get a better deal on the Upper Churchill. Madam Chair, I have a fear that they will put an end to the royalty tax on mineral resources in the Province if they were ever to succeed in getting the government of this Province.

The people of our Province are too smart for that, Madam Chair. The people of our Province will ensure that we continue to have the responsibility for looking after our affairs and we are going to be very happy to continue doing so for years to come.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): Before I recognize the next speaker, I would also like to recognize that Santa Claus is in the gallery today. Santa, I am asking you not to forget all of the little children in hospital this Christmas, and to make sure that you visit all the little children in our Province, especially the children in Burin-Placentia West.

I can tell you, Santa, from my experience here, they have been much better behaved than the members of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Merry Christmas to everyone.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Chair, I was just listening to my colleague on the other side talking about, I guess, the political ambitions that the government has in terms of hoping that they are going to get re-elected. Well, I can tell you that he must have been inspired by Santa Claus in the gallery, because certainly the record will show that Santa Claus is all about fantasy, is all about hope and this kind of thing. The minister was obviously living in a fantasyland, or perhaps he was a dreamer. If he was a dreamer, he was a dreamer par excellence, a dreamer of some significance, because I heard him talk about the fact that they were all going to get re-elected, and we on this side could get a few people elected, and this kind of thing. That would be his prognostication on what was going to happen in the next election. Well, we will have to wait and see.

You see, we on this side have been listening to what the government have been saying all this year. The day before yesterday, on Tuesday, I brought reference to what this government intended to do when they read the Speech from the Throne on March 19. In that Speech from the Throne, this government promised to be open and to have a practice of greater openness and accountability. They said the real hallmark of this Administration was going to be real accountability. They said they had adopted a policy of openness, of publicly releasing reports and studies once they are received.

Of course, we note from the Auditor General's report that most Crown corporations and other groups that access government money do not prepare reports that are tabled in this House. Therefore, we say to the government that -

MR. LUSH: When did the Auditor General first begin to recognize that?

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the Government House Leader that he will have his opportunity to make his comments. The other day when he was talking in the House, he made some very negative commentaries about the Auditor General's reports. I would say that the Auditor General's job is to look at the evidence that is presented, to look at it and see whether or not there are good accounting practices followed. If you look at that, you would look to what this government did with the Marystown file. You would not look to the Marystown file and say: This is a good example of good accounting practices. This is the way we should run things in this Province.

Certainly, if you were looking at many of the other things that the Auditor General has identified, you would not say, on the balance of all of the evidence, that this is a good practice to be followed. In fact, the Auditor General's report this year has to be among the most scathing reports that I have seen since I have been following these things, and that is for a considerable number of years.

I draw members' attention to the very opening paragraph in the Auditor General's report. On page 1 - actually, it is titled page 7 - the Auditor said, "A fundamental principle of accountability is that an entity cannot be accountable to itself." Therefore, they trust groups like the Auditor General to hold them accountable. "True accountability requires that entities be held accountable to those who provide the resources for their operations. On behalf of the taxpayers of the Province, the House of Assembly approves the allocation of resources to Government departments, Crown agencies and Memorial University of Newfoundland. True accountability would require that these entities, in turn, report back to the House of Assembly on their use of the resources granted."

Madam Chair, the Auditor General this year makes note and says that not many of these Crown agencies, not many of the government departments, actually file reports and place them on file with the House of Assembly. Therefore, we have a real issue of accountability. As a matter of fact, further on in the report the Auditor General says, "In this Province, with the exception of the Public Service Commission, no departments and only 9 of 83 Crown agencies prepared and tabled annual reports for 2001 in the House of Assembly. While other jurisdictions have been developing and implementing ways to modernize and improve their performance reporting, as far as reporting information the House of Assembly is concerned, this province is now further behind than it was in the 1980s and the early 1990s, when some departments were preparing and tabling some form of annual report in the House of Assembly." He goes on to say that in his opinion "...the only way that this situation can ever be resolved is through legislation which specifically requires that Government departments, all Crown agencies and Memorial University of Newfoundland prepare and publish annual performance plans and performance reports and have them tabled in the House of Assembly."

Well, nearly a year after the Throne Speech, why is the Auditor General finding this government has done such a poor job of living up to its commitments? Because, obviously, on the (inaudible) of an independent person, the Auditor General, this government is not doing what it should be doing in terms of being accountable.

Now, I just wanted to say to the hon. members, as well, today we are debating the motion here, the supply bill, and it is to borrow $200 million, and we are doing it under closure. Now, closure is a strong-arm tactic. It is provided for in the Standing Orders of this House in section, I think it is 47, where it gives the government - when it gets to the point where it believes that it has to introduce it, it does. You know, from 1949 to 1989, closure was used in this House of Assembly just five times. In forty years, closure was used five times only. All throughout the political careers of Joseph R. Smallwood, Frank Moores and Brian Peckford, closure was used only five times. From 1989 to 1996, closure was used twenty-three times. In the Administration of Clyde Wells, closure was used twenty-three occasions. Now, we note that four of those twenty-three times were under Premier Tobin, actually, in 1996.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) the law.

MR. H. HODDER: Now, the point is - I am not saying to the Government House Leader that it is not provided for in the rules. I made that quite clear at the beginning. I am just saying to the Government House Leader and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that this is a strong-arm tactic. We, on this side, when asking questions about what this government intends to use the $200 million for, we have asked detailed questions. The critic for Finance has been trying to find out why you need the $200 million. The answers have not been coming forward, and yet this government says: We want to be accountable. In order to be accountable, you have to answer the questions. You have to answer the question: Why is this government in need of $200 million?

We, on this side, have been trying for weeks and weeks and weeks to get answers to that question. We have not gotten satisfactory answers. Therefore, we were saying that this government, now, in the eleventh hour of this session, before the Christmas break, finds itself saying: Well, we are going to bring in the strong-arm tactics. We are not saying that they are not provided for in parliamentary rules; not at all. Every parliament has those rules. Most parliaments can function without having to use them. In this particular House, we went for forty years and closure was used only five time, and, yet, since 1989, we have used it something like twenty-three or twenty-five times since then.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: The point is that this government is forcing things, is not answering the questions that have been asked, and they should have been able to get this legislation through, answer the questions and we would have given them the approvals.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is an honour for me to stand today and -

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is not.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, it is, I say to the ember for Bonavista South. Always, Sir.

- say a few words and to speak in support of Bill 7.

I have to say, since being involved with this hon. House, and the twelve years prior to being elected as a member here, what I have witnessed over the last twelve months, I never saw before, all the while I have been coming to this wonderful building; never seen the like before.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Auditor General is saying the same thing.

MR. BUTLER: I will get to the Auditor General shortly, but I wanted to wait until the president of his fan club came in. He is not here yet.

Anyway, I never witness the like before. If there was ever an award, Madam Speaker, for a Leader of the Opposition, I would have to classify it this year as: How low can you go? I mean, let's face it, all you can hear from that gentleman, seriously, is that we are stealing, we are misleading, we are mismanaging, soft budget, band-aid approach, breaking the law, broken trust, spending the Province into bankruptcy. That is all we have heard, Madam Speaker, from this hon. gentleman.

I say to you, and to the people of this Province, who is really misleading the people? Who is spreading the doom and gloom? Who spent the last year, 2002, looking for loopholes while this government has been managing the Province to the best of their ability in support of the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: All you have to do, Madam Speaker, is look at the Budget Highlights for 2002, and when you read through them you will understand why the people of this Province know that they have someone who they can trust. You can go through the proposals for the youth of our Province, municipal affairs, health care, education -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: What was that again?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: You can trust us, Sir, more than I can say for some people.

All you have to do is look at the Budget, Madam Chair, and you will see what is happening. Seeing as my hon. colleague for Harbour Maine had to cut across my time, I would just like to read a quote from a private citizen of his own district, that was registered in Securing Our Future Together, March 2001, when he said, "I just want to express full support to government and the committee in giving the people an opportunity to express their feelings on how we can move this great province forward. Together we can overcome." That is from a gentleman by the name of Mr. Ralph Dawe. That is what we are doing, listening to the people, working with them, moving forward. Yes we have rear-view mirrors but we will not govern by them.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you talk about (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Yes, I know where he stands but it is truthful what he says.

The other thing, Madam Chairperson - I would like to quote another one from my good friend from Bonavista North, the latest member to this wonderful House, Mr. Harry Harding, when he said, with regards to Beothic Fish Processors Limited. In 1997, he said, Beothic Fish Processors processed just one species of fish, salt cod, and employed a maximum of fifty people. In 1998 the company processed twenty-one species of fish and created 250 full-time jobs. I congratulate him and the people. That is working together with the government, not doom and gloom like the Leader of the Opposition is always forecasting.

Madam Chairperson, during the PC convention in Corner Brook, the Leader of the Opposition said: Premier Grimes is spending the Province into bankruptcy. From March 21 to May 6, from March to May in this year, there were forty-seven proposals put forward from the other side asking for more money. Today, that number has gone over 100. So, how far would you spend her into bankruptcy if you were in power?

Madam Chairperson, I cannot help but refer back to March 19, 2002, when the Leader of the Opposition said, after the Throne Speech, "Oil and Gas:" he said, "Our oil is the greatest contributor to GDP. What does that mean? It means nothing. They put it on a ship and it leaves Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not processed here. Nothing happens to it. It drives up our GDP number. So what? It comes in, it goes into holding tanks in Whiffen Head, and then it is shipped out. It is not processed in this Province." He threw his arms up in the air and he said, "Gone!" Well, Madam Chair, I would say to him -

MR. FITZGERALD: You will hear it again in a few minutes time.

MR. BUTLER: I say to the hon. member, all we can hear about is the bad deal that the Upper Churchill was, but let it be said that when the Upper Churchill was constructed there were 4,500 jobs created for the people of this Province. Granted, it will be 2041 before we get it back but we will get that back.

If you look at the Atlantic Accord, Madam Chair, to clause 54 of the Memorandum of Understanding, it prohibits any processing of the oil from the offshore in this Province until all the refineries in Eastern Canada, including Quebec, are operating at 100 per cent capacity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who signed that?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, I asked the same question. Who signed that wonderful deal? Here we are complaining about the Upper Churchill which we are going to get back. I can understand when the hon. member said: When the oil comes ashore it is shipped out, it is gone. That is true. All we got was a few jobs and they gave the rest away, not to be processed here in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: We will talk to your brother about the Lower Churchill deal in 2003.

The other thing I want to just touch on, Madam Chairperson: They are always talking about how we give away our natural resources. All you can hear are issues about out-migration. I would like for the records to state that from 1972 up to 1989 there was also such a thing called out-migration. I know who was in power at that time. There were 46,559 net people out-migrated during those seventeen years with no major catastrophe in our Province whatsoever such as a cod motorium. Here we are, from 1989-2002, bawling about the out-migration of 60,000 with a major crisis in our Province, but nothing about the 46,000 who out-migrated from 1972-1989.

I have to say, Madam Chair, that I stand today in support of this bill because I know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) going to bring them all back, every mother's son.

MR. BUTLER: That is right. I was one of the ones who went from 1972-1982 and came back, so what he said was true, Your Honour. I was one to prove it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: When I went out in 1986, I know who the Premier of this Province was. He was the same man who threw his arms up and said: I cannot do what has to be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doesn't have the intestinal fortitude.

MR. BUTLER: Does not have the intestinal fortitude, and here we now have the Leader of the Opposition saying: That is my baby, that is my idol.

I say, Madam Chair, it is time for the people of this Province to really see what this is about. This government stands for Liberalism, not Toryism, taking from the poor and giving to the multi-millionaires.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Madam Chair, I would just like to close on that note and say that I am proud to stand in support of this bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I am happy to be able to stand and say a few words on Bill 7.

If the idol of the Member for Port de Grave were sitting here in the Premier's chair today, I think he would whisper to himself and say: What tripe! What tripe coming from the Member for Port de Grave.

I stepped outside the House for a few minutes and I heard the member quoting some of the things that I had said when he talked about the offshore oil industry. I do not know in which context he referred to it, but I remember what I said and I am going to say it here again today. When you talk about the GDP and you talk about what oil and gas means, and you talk about all the opportunities that were offered to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I remember coming here and attending an estimates meeting when the present Minister of Mines and Energy was the Minister of Labour, I guess, at the time - or, it might have been the Premier; I think it might have been the Premier who was the Minister of Labour at the time - and asking some questions about what was happening out at Hibernia. At that particular time there were a couple of thousand people working on that particular site, I think, and I raised the question because I had talked to a number of people who were working there. They talked about being unable to get time off, being unable to get time with their families. They were working seven days a week, twelve and fourteen hours a day, and the Premier's answer was: I don't know what the member is talking about. There are 2,000 people working out there, and sure they are working overtime, and what is wrong with that?

The other comment that the gentleman made, the minister of the day indicated, was that the site cannot accommodate any more people. The site is full, we do not have any more places out there for people to stay and for people to eat.

Madam Chair, at that particular time I was talking about labour work, not about skilled labour, labour work. Many of the labourers were working many hours, could not get time off, could not even get a weekend with their families, and we were paying them all time and a half, double time, double time and a half. There is nothing wrong with that, if that is being paid by some private contractor, by some private individual. It is none of my business, none of the Premier's business or anybody else's business, but, Madam Chair, here was a situation where the wages were being paid by the taxpayers of this country. Wages were being paid from the same pockets of people who were trying to find a job.

I had indicated at the time, and I said to the minister at the time: Minister, the people who I talked to are quite capable of going out to Hibernia and going to work, and I will tell you what, they would not be insulted if they were offered a job where they had to take their lunch can and get aboard their car and drive home every evening.

We are too eager to give away things and to accept what we have, to accept a few crumbs sometimes, when there is still a great need, a great need for the people in this Province.

Madam Chair, I will refer again to Whiffin Head. I recall being here one day and the Premier of the day came in and got up on Ministerial Statement and talked about what a wonderful day it was for Newfoundland and Labrador. They had just come in from Whiffin Head and they had opened this new port facility. The new port facility is a facility where our offshore oil, taken from the Hibernia oil fields, and I guess probably the Terra Nova oil field, too, right now, and brought into Whiffin Head and stored in storage tanks and then put aboard another boat from the same facility and shipped to other places in order to refine and create job opportunities. It was supposed to have been a great day for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Chairperson, I say to you and I say to the Premier, it is never a great day for Newfoundland and Labrador when you look out and you see employment in some of our communities in excess of 95 per cent and 98 per cent and you see our resources leaving this Province unprocessed and all the economic activities and the jobs going somewhere else. That is not the way it is supposed to work, and that is not the way that it should be.

That is why people out there, I say to the Member for Port de Grave, are not overly excited when they hear the GDP leading the country. They are not excited because they know that does not transpire and does not transfer into jobs and benefits for a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I indicated here before, I have one community in my district, Madam Chair, with 160 people, and five people get up in the morning and go to work. Five people get up in the morning and go to work. Those are people who are used to having a job. The whole community was devastated when the fishing industry closed down and when the plant closed down where they normally found work. They did not work year-round. They would if the opportunities were there, and they have in the past when the plant operated year-round, but it is a situation now where five people get up in the morning, out of 160 people, and are fortunate enough to have a job. That is why we here, on this side of the House, will never be happy when we hear of our resources leaving this Province unprocessed and the job opportunities going somewhere else. That is why we cannot accept that.

That is why, Madam Chair, we on this side on the House question Bill 7, question government's right to go to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and ask for permission to have access to $200 million. Ask for access to $200 million. It was only a couple of days ago we saw Bill 8 brought forward in this Legislature where the same government looked for the opportunity to go out and borrow and have access to another $51 million. Bill 8 - $51 million - nothing itemized. They talked about spending $2,500,000 for Works, Services and Transportation. Nobody knows what they were going to spend the money on. The questions were asked; there was no answers given.

Madam Chair, there was $10 million for education. There was $34 million for Health and Community Services, and in excess of $3 million for Justice. We would not object if we knew where this money was being spent, if it was being spent in a right and proper way. I think it should be itemized. If government is looking for money, and if they know which department is going to spend it, then the least they can do - the government of the day, the minister of the day - is be able to answer questions where that particular money is being spent. Now we find the same government coming back today and saying that we may not want to borrow $200 million, but we want for you to give us the authority to have access to $200 million that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be responsible for paying back.

Madam Chair, when you look at the Auditor General's report that was laid on each one of our desks just a couple of days ago, you know the reasons why we have concern. You know the reasons why we want some answers on how this money is going to be spent.

We see the government House Leader today bring in a closure motion in order to get this piece of legislation, in order to access $200 million. The Member for Waterford Valley talked about this particular motion only being brought in five times in the last forty years - five times in forty years, I should say - but it has been brought in thirty times since 1989. Thirty times the closure motion was brought in. It is the gestapo style of running government, it is the hobnail boots, and we over here on this side of the House would not operate in that kind of a fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: We would ask the questions, we would answer the questions, and we would be responsible to the taxpayers of this Province.

Madam Chair, what jumps out at you more is when you see, like I said, what the Auditor General put forward just a few days ago - the watchdog of government - where the Auditor General pointed out, in many departments of government, the way government should have run departments, and the way that government should have been responsible, has not been adhered to. The Auditor General has a great concern over that, and we do here as well.

Madam Chair, $200 million is a lot of money. Two hundred million dollars for the government to say, give us the authority to borrow and we will tell you after how much we are going to borrow and how much we are going to spend, is certainly not good enough.

We saw the Premier and this government, just a short time ago, go and spend $250,000 in an ad campaign promoting the Premier, promoting the Premier's government. We have been trying to find out from which department that particular money came. There have been some questions asked. Nobody wants to say. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, a quarter of a million dollars, spent to run ads in the print media around this Province to promote the Premier to try to get him up in the polls, to prop up this government to lead into an election. Is that the right and proper way to spend government money, I say to you Premier, I say to people opposite, to spend the taxpayers' money to promote the Premier, promote the government, to go out and try to get re-elected. This is where your fundraising should kick in. This is where the Liberal Party should be spending their money, not the people, to promote an individual or to promote a government. I can tell you, Madam Chairperson, that people on this side of the House would not act in that uncaring, callous way. If we are going to spend taxpayers' dollars, then we will spend them with taxpayers' advice and for taxpayers in this particular Province.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about job creation again and we talk about getting a fair value for our resources. We continue to hear the government of the day, we continue to hear the speaker, taking about the great deal of Voisey's Bay, the great Voisey's Bay deal. I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if Voisey's Bay will be such a great deal, if not one ounce, not one pound or, as the former Premier would say, not one spoonful of ore or concentrate from Labrador is ever processed here in this Province. Will it be such a great day then.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about all the loopholes in the deal that was put forward, the Voisey's Bay deal. He has pointed them out here in this Legislature. He has pointed out the loopholes and he asked questions, but there are no answers. There are no answers. We are willing to learn, Madam Chairperson. We are willing to admit that we are wrong if we raise the issues. How do we know we are wrong when we ask the questions and nobody wants to answer them? How do we know?

MR. BARRETT: You got the answers.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said: We have the answers. I tell him, I certainly have not seen the answers.

When you look at what is happening down in Marystown - it is a great day in Marystown now, Madam Chairperson, your district. There is some activity going on there. Peter Kiewit & Sons have taken over that particular yard there and there is going to be some economic activity. I believe that. But look what happened leading up to that. Look what happened to Friede Goldman, a company that was allowed to leave this Province owing the taxpayers $10 million; $10 million dollars of taxpayers money gone, Madam Chairperson. We tried to raise the issue. We tried to bring this government to hold Friede Goldman accountable. What they did, Madam Chair, is we gave them Marystown Shipyard. We gave them another extra $2 million or $3 million to clean up the site there. They were supposed to have a $10 million penalty if they did not provide a certain number of man hours. None of that was ever attended to. None of that was ever listened to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You can shout across the floor all you want, the bottom line is, Friede Goldman and this government, with the deal they entered into, robbed the taxpayers of this Province of $10 million. What I could do with $10 million in the District of Bonavista South! What the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation could do with $10 million in Bellevue! You wonder why we ask the questions. You wonder why we do not want to give you a guarantee to be able to go out and borrow, or have access to, $200 million. Well, Madam Chairperson, it is very simple.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: In conclusion, I say: Yes, closure is brought on this bill, but it is the bill that we do not support and it is the bill that the people of this Province do not support, because the people in this Province do not trust this government, or this Premier, to spend their money, or give them a blank cheque.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is a pleasure for me to stand today to speak to the loans bill, to speak to the importance of this particular bill, and to deal with some of the erroneous statements that have been made across the House today.

First and foremost, this foolishness, Madam Chair, about the fact that we are using money unreasonably by using money to advertise, to suggest that we are using it to prop up anybody's image or the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: Give us a break, Madam Chair. The fact of the matter here is that every government advertises. Every government since time memorial has advertised. What we are trying to do through the media, through the newspapers, through television, if we want to use television, but certainly through the media, is get the message out, a very valid message about what it is the government, who has been elected by the people, are doing on their behalf with their money. We are doing it because it is the right thing to do. We cannot rely on the television, we cannot rely on print media. So how do you get your message out. We have responsibility to the people we serve to let them know exactly what we are doing on their behalf and that is exactly what we are doing with the advertising. It has worked very well. In fact, I have had people say to me: That is so good to know, that you worked on our behalf doing this.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Madam Chairperson, contrary to what the Opposition House Leader is saying, they were not cancelled because of all the conflict that we were getting from across the way. They were not. The message got out there and you leave it out there for a certain period of time. You obviously know so little about advertising and the philosophy behind it because you do not have an appreciation for the method and when we do it.

Advertising was the right thing to do at that period of time and we will do it again if it is the right thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Absolutely!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not (inaudible). Is that what you are saying?

MS FOOTE: It served its purpose for the time being but stay tuned. Clearly, when the messages are to be delivered we will deliver the right message at the right time. That is what advertising is all about.

When we talk about a responsible government and talk about why we need money, when you look at it, this government has spent $170 million on our schools, whether it is for new schools, redevelopment, or to put extensions on schools, $170 million this government has put into education in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the single largest expenditure, Madam Chair, in the history of this Province; the single largest expenditure! We are very proud, as a government, to be able to have done that. We recognize the importance of education, we recognize the importance of putting money into education, which is why we will continue to do that, which is why we have, today, requests for $70 million worth of more investment.

When you speak about the need to borrow money, of course the need is there, but what we have already done speaks to why we have to continue to support our education system. In addition to $170 million for redevelopments for new schools, for extensions to schools, the point is that there is still work to be done. We have budgeted $12 million to do things like repair roofs, repair windows, and that is being spent on an average of $4 million a year. So, it is $12 million budgeted for over three years. That is not insignificant when you figure out that we have 323 schools in this Province and we are making sure that we are doing everything we can to guarantee that our young people have safe, clean learning environments because that is a responsibility we have as a government.

When we talk about issues that we have to deal with in the education system that cost money, in addition to all of the curriculum needs and the salaries of our teachers and busing, all of the other issues, we have the very real problem of making sure that our facilities are up to scratch, that in fact we know that our children will be going to school in safe, clean learning environments.

In addition to the $12 million we budgeted for things like repairing roofs and repairing windows and air quality issues, another $10 million, we need more money. We are constantly being asked by our school boards because they know, they are on the ground and they know what the needs are, and we are trying to respond in a positive manner to those needs.

These are social issues for us and while we talk about education as being a social issue we should never lose site of the importance of education to the economic issues. You cannot have one without the other. They go hand and hand. Clearly we have to have an educated population if we are going to survive as a Province. If we are going to see our economy improve, we must recognize the importance of education.

One of the things that I am so pleased about, of course, being a member of this government, is that I am one of seven women who sit on this side of the House. I would like to think that we will have more women sitting on this side of the House after the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I am so pleased to see that there is one woman sitting in the Opposition and, hopefully, they will make more effort to recruit more women because that is the only chance they are going to have, Madam Chair, of expanding on their numbers. I think we all need to recognize the importance of having women as part of government. I do not necessarily say that we do things better but we certainly do things differently. We bring a different perspective to the table and I think that is important for all of us to recognize. Certainly on this side of the House we work very hard as a group of women, all seven of us, to make a difference. I think we have been able to do that, if you look at what this government has done from a social policy perspective, look at our Strategic Social Plan, look at our Strategic Social Committees around the Province, how we have brought all the various stakeholders together throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Right now, our Strategic Social Plan is under the auspices of the Minister of Health and Community Services, the hon. Gerald Smith. As the Chair of the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet, I had the pleasure of traveling to all of our six regional committees throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, meeting with all the stakeholders and having a discussion with them about the needs from a social policy perspective, the needs that exist throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important to note that we have had a wonderful response to that. In fact, if you look at what we have been able to do, as a government who has made it a priority to address social issues, whether they are housing issues or issues dealing with children, issues dealing with adoption, issues dealing with low income families, no matter what the issue, the women on this side of the House have taken the lead to make sure that, first and foremost, they have prominence at any of the discussions that take place in this government.

I am looking forward to having many more female colleagues on the government side of the House after the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I want to get back to education and get back to our school system and get back to the need for more money, and the importance of recognizing that the needs out there are very real. What we have been able to do, to date, with the $170 million that this government has invested in education, in new builds, in extensions on schools, on redevelopments, we have been able to make those facilities state-of-the-art facilities. That is so important if our children are going to be able to compete. They need to have access to the best. We have been ensuring that by making sure that we have state-of-the-art systems in our schools, that our schools are state-of-the-art facilities, that, in fact, they are all wired. All of our schools, especially all of our new schools, are wired so that they all have computers now in the classrooms, not just a computer lab in a school but computers in all of the classrooms, that our students can access.

I have to give some credit to Aliant for the partnership that we formed with Aliant, and I was so pleased about that because, again, it shows that the private sector recognizes that it, too, has an obligation to work with us, to work with government, to work with everyone, to make sure that we provide the best possible education system we can for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is because of that partnership that we formed with Aliant that we have the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation doing such wonderful things. In fact, we are offering courses now via distance education to children in the most remote parts of our Province, children who would probably not have access to teachers to teach them math or to teach them science or French, or special education teachers; but because of the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation, and the tremendous input through Aliant to ensure that we have that high-speed bandwidth throughout the Province, we now have children in the most remote parts of our Province able to study these particular courses. Because one of the difficulties we have had, of course, is attracting teachers in specialty areas; teachers who can teach math, teachers who can teach science, teachers who can teach French. It is not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the case throughout the country, but we have had to be innovative. We have had to creative.

While distance education is not new in Newfoundland and Labrador, in fact, Dr. Max House, one of the first people to get involved in distance education through telemedicine at Memorial University was, in fact, I guess, the guru, the individual who really got us in this Province thinking about doing things via distance education, but what we have been able to do now as a result of that and working with Aliant is come up with the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation, and it is through this very Centre that we are able to deliver all of these fabulous programs for our students, no matter where they live in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are no longer bound by geography, which is so important for Newfoundland and Labrador and for our students to make sure that they have access to the best material that we can provide to quality education and to teachers, because our e-learning teachers are, in fact, the cream of the crop. We have been able to attract, from our teaching force, those teachers who are the very best to, in fact, be our e-learning teachers. This works so well, because no matter where the teacher is located, he or she will have a class comprised of students from maybe a dozen communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and it works very well.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: Speaking to the bill again, and the need to go this route, Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to stand in support of it, again to recognize that the needs are great, that I have requests for $70 million sitting on my desk.

Having said that, Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to be here to support this and to know that we are doing what is in the best interests of not only the children in Newfoundland and Labrador but the entire population of Newfoundland and Labrador, that this government is committed to all of our people, and whatever we do will be above board and something that we can all stand and feel proud of.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to join the debate today. What is before us is government asking the House of Assembly to give it the authority to borrow $200 million for something, at some point, and we do not know what it is for, in the future.

Every member on the opposite side have stood up and talked about everything but the nature of the bill in this way. What is it that government needs the $200 million for? How much money is government going to save the people of the Province if we give them the $200 million? Has anybody in this House today heard those answers? No, they have not. Because we have not heard those answers over the last several weeks, that is why we on this side of the House are not about to sign a blank cheque for government to go get the $200 million. It is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, all of this week I have heard lots of members talk about: Well every government does this. This dates back to the early Moores' years. This is not an exceptional bill. This is not a piece of legislation that we should get exercised about. Really? Maybe some members need a history lesson.

Hansard, 1987, the Government House Leader at the time was the critic for Finance. Would you like to hear what he said about the loan bill that was asked of the Legislature at the time? Do you know why he did not support the loan bill? Here is what he said: This is baffling news. This is shocking news. How can we support this government when they are going to put this Province on the brink of the financial abyss.

Do you know what he said? Do you know what the reason was? He said that the reason he could not support it at the time was because we had projected a $40 million deficit - the government of the day - and that it was actually going to be $170 million.

Now, let's compare that to this year. This government says we are going to run a modest deficit of about $60 million or $70 million, and, lo and behold, how much was it? - $60 million they projected?

MR. SULLIVAN: Last year?

MR. E. BYRNE: This year's budget.

MR. SULLIVAN: Ninety-three point three million dollars.

MR. E. BYRNE: A modest ninety-three point some-odd million dollars. Guess what we found out this year, in November, just six or seven months after? That the current deficit for the Province was going to be $473 million. Let's hear what he said in 1985 on the loan bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same member?

MR. E. BYRNE: The same member, the Member for Terra Nova, the Government House Leader. Here is what he said: How can we trust this government?

Madam Chair, the fact of the matter is this: We have not heard why this government, or the ministers in the Cabinet, or the backbenchers who support the government, tell us today anything compelling or evidence to suggest that, number one, they need the $200 million because they are going to do what with it? We have not heard what is going to be done with the $200 million. We have not heard how much money is going to be saved by the $200 million.

That is the reason why we have said clearly, publicly and otherwise, that this Official Opposition, and the members in this caucus, were not prepared to facilitate the passage of this legislation unless it could be demonstrated that money was going to be used for the benefit of the people of the Province and not for the benefit of the Liberal Party and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have not done it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Education - I have to talk about some of the things in terms of the wasteful use of public money that has occurred. She talked about advertising. The minister, before politics, had a long career in terms of public relations director. I first met the minister when I was President of the Students Union at Memorial. She was Director of Communications for the university. She knows the business. She knows advertising. She was Director of Communications for former Premier Clyde Wells, for the entire government. She knows advertising. What I am really interested today to hear, to hear her talk about how the message about getting our message out was so good, and that using the Premier's picture on the advertising campaign was really nothing outstanding; every government does it.

Let me remind her that when she was Director of Communications for former Premier Clyde Wells, she was the one who brought the message from former Premier Clyde Wells to all the ministers about not putting their pictures in the paper and sending out messages.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely! Guess who was the Parliamentary Assistant at the time? The now Premier of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely!

A directive was issued. Do you know why? Because the former Premier said, at the time, it was a terrible and shocking waste of public money for ministers just to get their pictures in the paper. That is exactly right.

Let's have a talk about the $200 million, and why we do not - what are some of the reasons that ourselves, in the Opposition, are not willing to give that sort of carte blanche, blank cheque approval to the government and to the members on the Opposite side who support the government, so that they can use that when they will?

Just imagine, asking for $200 million in an election year. Can you imagine what this government would try to do with $200 million worth of borrowing in an election year? If we had no other reason not to support this bill, it was given to us on Tuesday when the Auditor General's report was tabled. It was given to us on Tuesday.

In 1998 and in 1999 in this Legislature, I asked the minister, and the Premier of the day, about Marystown. They did not table the agreement. Five years later we got the agreement in terms of what happened. We gave $86 million worth of assets - $86 million worth of assets we turned over to a company we knew very little about - for $1. To add insult to injury, we gave them $2.3 million so they could operate it. To add insult to injury even further, we did not even put in one tiny clause that said, in the event of a bankruptcy, the assets of that facility should revert to the Crown - in other words, to the people of the Province.

We are delighted today to see that Husky Oil and the development on White Rose is using and utilizing the Marystown facility, but some questions do arise. If that clause had been put into that contract and those assets had reverted to the Crown, do we not think, would it not be logical to believe, that we would have been able to leverage even greater amounts of work from that facility, that we would have been able to realize some benefits to the public Treasury that could have been used in Marystown, in Harbour Le Cou or anywhere else in the Province? Yes, we could have. The fact that we did not....

Someone asked a question today, a legitimate one: How much did Friede Goldman get for the yard? I know this: They got $10 million of penalties they did not have to pay, right off the bat; $10 million that they did not pay to this Province because they broke their agreement. They did not have to pay. That was certainly some benefit.

How much did Peter Kiewit & Sons pay for the yard? The members opposite know. They will not tell us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven million.

MR. E. BYRNE: Seven or eight million is what we understand, not a bad return on your dollar investment. Not a bad return. Ten million dollars worth of penalties you did not have to pay, Madam Chair, and $7 million or $8 million you got for it anyway, not a bad return on your investment.

You wonder why the members on this side of the House are unwilling to provide the government, and the members who support the government, the opportunity to have a blank cheque for $200 million to go out and borrow to lower interest rates, or whatever they are going to do with it, when they cannot even tell us what the money is going to be used for. Not this day, not ever, would we support that sort of approach by the members opposite, let me say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, let's look at what is said in the Auditor General's act. Was the Financial Administration Act contravened? Yes. Was it contravened on many occasions? Yes. Was the Public Tender Act violated and contravened? Yes. How many occasions? Many.

The fact of the matter is, the Editorial today in The Telegram summed it up. If we are going to have an Auditor General, and all that happens after the recommendations have been made year over year is that we duck our heads and hope that the wind of those sorts of scathing, scathing sorts of - looking at what government has done, if all we are going to do is duck our heads for a week or two and hope the story goes away, then they have asked a legitimate question: What is the purpose of having an Auditor General, if we are not going to be able to act upon the recommendations?

I understand why members opposite want to refer to the Progressive Conservative government of the eighties. I understand that, but somebody over there must realize that you have been the government for the last fourteen years, and it is about time that people take some responsibility for the actions of their government in the last fourteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: When I first came into this Legislature in 1993 -

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just to conclude?

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: When I first came into the Legislature in 1993 and the first Auditor General's report was tabled, many of the same recommendations that were made in 1993 are still the ones that are being made today, Mr. Chairman.

The fact of the matter is this: It is about time that members opposite and members in this House take seriously those recommendations and move to act upon them. Then, and only then, maybe in some further future debates about a loan bill, people may have some confidence in providing the government that sort of money if they can demonstrate it is in the best public interest.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad that the Opposition House Leader brought up history today because I am a student of history and I have quite a good memory when we talk about history, and we are talking about loans and government mismanagement.

They want to talk about the Auditor General's report. I draw their attention to pages 59 and 60 of the Auditor General's report where he mentions the fact that, in the last eleven years, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has written off $235 million in accounts receivable in loans that they could not collect. Two hundred and thirty-five million.

If you look at the dates, 1992-2002, one would assume, if you did not know the difference, that these were loans that were made by this government, bad loans that could not be called in, loans that we could not get our money back for. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you look at that, the vast majority of those loans, nearly $200 million of the $235 million, were loans that were made by the Tory government prior to 1989, Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of them, loans that the members opposite, the Tory government prior to 1989 made to their friends and everybody else, and no way that we could collect them. In none of the contracts was there a clause saying that you had to put up a personal guarantee in order to get one of these loans.

Mr. Chairman, this year we wrote them off. There was no point in leaving them on the books. There was absolutely no way that any of us could collect money from the individuals because of the contracts that crowd opposite wrote prior to 1989.

If they do not believe me, look at some of them. They talk about some of them. Two hundred and thirty-five million, nearly $200 million of which came from the crowd opposite. The first one, right on the top of the page, Mr. Chairman, Baie Verte Mines Incorporated $47.5 million. Do you know how much of that we got back, Mr. Chairman? Not one cent, not one cent. Do you know the reason we could not get it back, Mr. Chairman? Nowhere in the contract did it say, basically, that they had to pay it back. Nowhere in the contract was there any clause that we could take that crowd to court and retrieve any of that money for the taxpayers of the Province.

Now, if you go to the second one on the list, Newco Corporations. Now a lot of people do not know who Newco Corporations are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are they?

MR. REID: I will tell you one who does know, though, the last Tory Premier that sat in this House. The last Tory Premier who sat in this House knows who Newco Corporations was. The Fisheries Minister, prior to becoming Premier for a very short time, that was four companies that he set up to build the mid-distance vessels in this Province. Left the Province, left the people of Newfoundland and Labrador holding the bag on $17.2 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Member for Lewisporte, the last Tory Premier that sat in the House of Assembly.

They talk about mismanagement of funds. It is difficult to sit here each day and listen to these fellows lecture us. When they had control of the government - that is the reason they do not have control of the government now, because the people of this Province caught on to them and turfed them out before they could drive us into bankruptcy.

The next one, a very fancy name -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Just pay attention, I say to the Member for The Straits, pay attention and you might learn something. He said the other day he was not born before half of this took place. You might learn something about your history if you listen.

Newfoundland Enviroponics Limited, who were they? You tell me. Were they involved in the mining industry in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. REID: Were they involved in the fishing industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. REID: Were they involved in the forest industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. REID: I will tell you one thing, they did not make doors or windows.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. REID: Who was Newfoundland Enviroponics Limited?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they grow?

MR. REID: Do you know what they grew? They grew cucumbers - Sprung. Mr. and Mrs. Sprung waltzed into this Province and waltzed out owing this Province in excess of $20 million, and guess what? How much of that money can we retrieve for the taxpayers of this Province? Not one cent. Because of the way the contract was written at the time, there was no way that we could ever collect that.

Mr. Chairman, you go down through the list of them. Notre Dame Bay Fisheries Limited, a good friend of Premier Peckford, $3.8 million gone, written off. Here is another very interesting one, Governor's Park Limited, $1.4 million taken from the pockets of the taxpayers of this Province, put into a facility up on Salmonier Line, $1.4 million. Today, it is called The Wilds, and the owner of The Wilds, the Leader of the Opposition, picked that facility up for $200,000, and the taxpayers of this Province are out $1.4 million. Why? Because the crowd opposite never wrote into a contract that you had to pay the money back to the people of this Province.

It is absolutely repulsive to sit here today and listen to that crowd opposite lecture us about mismanagement and trust. The reason they are not in the government today is because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in 1989, did not trust them and they turfed them out. God help us if they ever come back again.

Mr. Chairman, another thing that I would like to talk about today, the members opposite have been talking and the Member for Bonavista South got up today, and, like I mentioned the other night, almost every single day in this House since it opened in the fall, he gets up with a petition right after Question Period, talking about the roads down in Bonavista South; and the roads in Bonavista South might be bad, no worse than the ones in my district. Certainly no worse than the ones on the Northern Peninsula or the Baie Verte Peninsula. I admire him for standing up for his constituents, looking for money to repair those roads. I do the same thing in the Cabinet, talk to people, talk to the minister, and try to get the roads paved in my district. I would love to have more. I also would like to get more money from the Minister of Municipal Affairs for decent drinking water for the people of this Province. I would love to be able to get more money from the Minister of Health for the hospitals in my district, and every day I have requests for more money. I tell the people in my district: I am sorry, but we do not have the money to do this today, but maybe next year we will have the money.

I am sure all the members opposite say the same thing to their constituents, and especially this time of the year, Mr. Chairman, when we all know this time of the year is the time of the year that the government tries to do some job creation, put people to work in this Province, who have nothing, who are unable to find a job. While the numbers are going down each year, there are still a number of individuals in the Province who did not qualify for EI this year and they call and they ask for a make-work program to be able to qualify for EI, to be able to feed their families. We have no problem with it. We would love to have more money. We would love to be able to put every single man and woman in this Province to work, some meaningful employment, so that they could feed their families. We would love to. Everyone in this House would love to.

Then, we get the members opposite up for the last three weeks hammering us day in, day out. What are they are looking for? Besides looking for money for this, this and this, they are also up hammering us because we are bringing in a royalty tax on Archean Resources, the two individuals who discovered Voisey's Bay.

While I have the greatest respect for them, and I do not begrudge them one cent they are going to make, the fact of the matter is, on that contract they will make $400 million. They will make roughly $400 million, and we are bringing in an act that says, you are going to pay a 20 per cent royalty on that. Who are you paying it to? You are not paying it to me or the members here or the members opposite. You are going to pay that to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - 20 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Twenty per cent. I listened to the Member for Baie Verte today talk about the letters that he got from all over the country; all over the country, letters. Who from? Prospectors saying that they are not going to come to Newfoundland and Labrador because we are going to tax them 20 per cent. How ludicrous, Mr. Chairman! How ludicrous!

The two individuals that discovered Voisey's Bay are going to get $400 million, 20 per cent of 80 million. They are going to walk out with $320 million and you are telling me that people from the mainland write the hon. Member for Bay Verte and say: We are not coming to Newfoundland and Labrador to do any discoveries, because if we make $400 million we are only going to walk out with $320 million. Just imagine! Just imagine the foolishness that you get on with. It is not foolishness, Mr. Chairman, because if you look at every Tory government in this world, whether it be in Canada, in the United States, in Britain or anywhere else in the world, what is the number one plank in the platform of every Tory government? We have one in the United States now, Mr. Bush. What is the first plank in their platform? Give tax breaks to the multi-nationals and the rich.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. REID: Give me one minute, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. REID: Give tax breaks to the rich. That is what the members opposite are asking for, tax breaks for the rich.

I will tell you one thing, Mr. Chairman, the Liberal Party certainly does not agree with that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. REID: We agree with taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Now that we have had a stroll down memory lane let's get back to the real world which is where we are today and the here and now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Let's get back, more particularly, to this particular session of the House. Today, we are standing here and the government is asking us to endorse a $200 million loan bill to give them a blank cheque to do what they want with over the next several months.

As they ask that question I have to reflect on this particular session. One of the first bills we dealt with in this session was Bill 33. Why did we have to deal with Bill 33? Because, the medical association and the physicians in this Province did not trust this government to live up with, to live up to, the ruling of a binding arbitration. They did not trust this government to be able to live up a commitment that they had made. That same government is standing here today saying: Trust us please. Give us a blank cheque for $200 million.

One of the other bills on the order paper was Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labrador Transportation Initiative Agreement. What was that one all about? That is about mistrust. What we have here is a government who has taken money from a dedicated fund for transportation in Labrador. It was on the Order Paper at the beginning of this session but we are not going to deal with it in this session. I suspect, Mr. Chair, the reason we are not going to deal with it in this session is because this government does not want to engage the Opposition in a debate and have to justify what they did in stealing the money from the Labrador fund and have to account for it in this House. That is why we are not doing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Encroaching on my time. You will have your ten minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: In this House of Assembly I think if you word something that somebody stole something it is unparliamentary.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said stealing, not stolen.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair did not hear the words being spoken, but I am sure if the member uttered them he will do the hon. thing and retract them.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: If I suggested that someone stole something, I apologize for it and retract it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we talk about this particular session, as well, and we look at Bill 8 and what we were asked to deal with in Bill 8, Supplementary Supply. What is Supplementary Supply about? A debate about special warrants where we have already heard, and my colleague for Ferryland has very eloquently described, very clearly, what special warrants mean, and how, in fact, this government has broken the law in not complying with the Financial Administration Act, further verified by statements in the Auditor General's report. That is all happening in this session.

Here right now, we talking about Bill 7, a major bill, a major piece of legislation - the government asking this Legislature to, in fact, give them the permission to borrow $200 million and spend some time in the future and not giving us any explanation for that, but on top of that, limiting the amount of debate by introducing closure, limiting debate on a major piece of legislation, limiting the debate in this Legislature on that particular bill.

Against that kind of backdrop, Bill 33, Bill 10, Bill 8, Bill 7, all of the issues in debate around those pieces of legislation and around those bills, point to some real legitimate concerns that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have about this particular government, where they are leading us, how much we can trust them and how accountable they are.

This past week I say, Mr. Chair, we have had the Auditor General's Report released. I just want to read from particular paragraph of the summary. It says there are two pieces of legislation which set rules relating to the financial operations of government; one: the Financial Administration Act; and the second: the Public Tender Act. It goes on to say, "As in other years, my Office continues to identify instances where Government and its agencies have contravened these Acts." (correct) Now I say, if government is going to come to this Legislature and ask the hon. members in this House to give them permission to use their best judgement, to use their discretion at some time in the future, trust them to make a logical prudent decision in the best interests of this Province, when you come and ask for that kind of support you better make sure that your track record, your past experience, your history in this Province is impeccable. That is a tall order to give someone an open cheque with that kind of dollar figure attached to it. What we have seen here and what we have witnessed is just the contrary I say, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to use the Auditor General's report to support some of the points that I have raised. We already read one of the things that the Auditor General said about the legislation that has acted in this Province to protect the Legislature. One of the issues deals with the creation of Crown corporations. It says: The creation of a Crown agency enabling legislation is contrary to the fundamental principles of our parliamentary system of government and is contrary to the principles of an effective framework for accountability. The report goes on to talk about the number of Crown agencies that have been established without enabling legislation. We had, in this House, this particular session Bill 24, was introduced and I commend the minister for not having followed through and have the debate on this in and has agreed to withdraw it because Bill 24, as was pointed out by the Opposition, and if we had not pointed that out this would be another entity that would have been created as a Crown corporation. We, in fact, have had some serious objections and as a result Bill 24 did not get debated in this House and we prevented another agency from being established, without first having all of the enabling legislation in place to protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The report, Mr. Chair, goes on to talk about how those agencies and how they function. It say: "The most recent financial statements of the17 Crown agencies created under the Corporations Act disclosed that 4 of these entities had a total of $43.8 million in outstanding debt due to entities outside of government reporting entity." Mr. Chair, we have a government establishing Crown agencies and, I think, there are some eighty odd referenced in here. We have a government that is charged with the responsibility of providing services to the Province, charged with the responsibility of prudent fiscal management and they are using Crown agencies and the establishment of Crown agencies as a tool, as a instrument to borrow money incurred that to facilitate expenses and expenditures in areas where they otherwise would never get the approval in this Legislature to spend them.

The normal course of the budgetary process as the hon. Government House Leader tried to educate us recently with is a process of introducing a budget, having a debate, having a discussion and through the committee process lay out your plan for the next year and how you are planning to do that. Borrowing through Crown agencies, using Crown corporations incorporated under the Corporations Act as an instrument to borrow money, deliver programs and provide services is a tool and an instrument that misleads this House and circumvents the normal budgetary process. It puts government in a position where they no longer have to be accountable to this Legislature. Do not have to bring the estimates back in here for some discussion.

One of the other things and I trust that when the Minister of Health and Community Services stands to speak on this bill he might want to comment. If you look at the debts that have been accumulated by health boards in this Province. I look particularly and this report references the last three fiscal years. In the last three fiscal years all but two of the health boards and there are fourteen of them, all of them have had operating deficits. I gather from the Public Accounts that was tabled earlier, before the Auditor General's report, that within those boards there is not today- those boards had those operating deficits and the minister has not provided prior authorization for those deficits to be (inaudible)

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: No leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and take a few minutes to speak in this debate. It is interesting to listen over the last number of days as debate has ensued in this House dealing with this bill that is really just asking for, on the part of government, to have the opportunity to move forward, at some point in time, when they see fit, to borrow this amount.

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing; this piece of legislation has regularly come before the House and it is something to behold, in recent days, to watch hon. members opposite try to spin this out and to try to cast it as some sort of a conspiracy on part of this government to somehow do something that has never been seen in this Province before. A real conspiracy. Unbelievable. You talk about trying to mislead and misinterpret, and try to lead people down a path where there is absolutely no need to be going.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened in this House. I have listened to the Health critic opposite, and I have listened to other hon. members, talk about the deficit that this government has built up, and I have listened to them talk about the fact that spending is out of control, that this government does not know what they are doing, that they are spending money like drunken sailors. Well, let's talk about some of the things that this government has spent money on. Let's talk about some of the priorities that this government has recognized and accepted on behalf of the people of this Province.

As you have heard me say repeatedly, at the present time this government spends forty-five cents of every program dollar in the delivery of health care services in this Province. Mr. Chairman, that means, of all the money that we have available, it just leaves fifty-five cents to be spent in all of the other program areas. That certainly speaks to the kind of priority that this government places on health care and the delivery of health care services to the people of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, since 1994, expenditures in health care have actually grown by 50 per cent; 50 per cent in the area of health care. That has been, in large part, driven, as everyone in this hon. House knows, by the fact that the federal government, during that period of time, has not been putting the money that they should be putting into health care. This government has been forced to take money away from other program areas, invest it in health care, because that is what the people have identified as their number one priority, and the response to that: We agree. So, that is where the money has been directed.

That is why, on a daily basis, when we see hon. members opposite in this House - and I recognize we all have concerns in our district - rise and present petitions, looking for improvements to roads, looking for additional infrastructure, looking for additional spending on this, that and the other thing, Mr. Chairman, the reality is, if you are in a position where you have to make the decision, it means you have to make difficult choices.

It is very easy if you are always saying yes to everything that comes forward. It is very easy when you can always stand up and be critical of any decision that is made. It is always easy when you never have to give leadership, because really all you do is look for a parade, you go out and jump in front of it and say: That is what I am going to lead today. It is the simplest thing in the world to do, Mr. Chairman, and that is what the hon. members opposite excel at, and that is what they spend their time doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I say to the hon. members opposite, and I say to the people of this Province, in terms of spending, where this government has put its money in recent years, the fact that we have constructed new facilities in Harbour Breton, Bonne Bay, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, do the people of this Province think these were good expenditures? I think so, Mr. Chairman, even if the hon. members opposite do not.

Government has committed $131 million for major expansion to hospitals at Gander, new health care facilities in Stephenville, Fogo and Grand Bank. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you, are these good expenditures? Are these places where the people of the Province want to see money expended? I would say yes, even if the hon. members opposite disagree.

Government has invested $62 million up to March 31 on these projects and will spend $82 million this year on these four construction projects. These are priorities that have been identified by people who live in these regions. These are priorities that we, as a government, are trying to respond to because we recognize and acknowledge, and we agree with the people who live in these areas, that these facilities are much needed.

Mr. Chairman, I can certainly speak to the hospital in Stephenville. Stephenville is part of my district and I understand, having lived there all my life and having been involved with the foundation there in raising money for the hospital for a number of years, I understand the concerns the community has. The present facility is a facility that we inherited from the American government, a facility that is outdated. It served its purpose. It served the people of the area well, but it is time now to move forward, to move into the Twenty-first Century, and to provide the people of that area a facility that meets their needs, that can provide the kind of care that they need in this day and age.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, the reality is, as well, we acknowledge and recognize that in our efforts to recruit and retain highly qualified professionals in the area of health care, we have to have first-rate facilities for them to work in. They are not going to come to Newfoundland, or our own people are not going to stay here, unless we are able to provide them with the kinds of infrastructure and the kinds of technology that they are trained to use, and the type of environment that they are trained to work in. Unless these are available, we will continue to lose them, so it is important to us on both fronts that we do ensure that these facilities are provided.

Mr. Chairman, we also need to remind ourselves that in the Budget 2002, government committed $2.7 million to provide wage increase for our home support workers. From time to time we have had hon. members opposite rise in support of issues related to this area, and rightly so. It is an area that is an important area to the people of the Province. People who work in that field, we understand that it is a challenging field and they provide a very important service, and we want to try to ensure that they are properly compensated. Are they now where we would like them to be? No, Mr. Chairman. We acknowledge that we have some distance to go, but we are showing, by putting money in our budget this year to support these people, that we do recognize that we do respect and we do value the kind of service that they are offering to the people in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, since 1997, the home support program costs have increased from $31.6 million to $71 million, an increase of 133 per cent. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the people of this Province, has that been money well spent? Indeed it has. Regardless of what the hon. member opposite may think - that we are not spending money wisely - I would suggest to you that there is no one in this Province who thinks that the money we are putting into home support is not money well spent.

Mr. Chairman, yes, even as I stand here and speak today, we have demands out there that we have not been able to realize, and have not been able to acknowledge and react to. The interesting thing is, the same hon. members who will rise and criticize this government for their fiscal programs and their spending practices will repeatedly, daily, on a daily basis, rise and present petitions and call upon government to spend more money in these very areas.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you, and I suggest to hon. members opposite, that it is not lost on the people of the Province. They do understand the kind of games being played, that quite frankly it is just a political charade that is being carried on, that quite frankly there is no seriousness in the issue put forward, and that is clearly reinforced by the kind of stonewalling that we are seeing on a bill that has been a regular practice here in this House. For hon. members in this House, sitting opposite, to suggest that it is anything other than a routine piece of business is certainly a charade and the people of this Province will not be fooled. They see it for what it is, a cheap political trick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, let's focus on another program, the drug program, the pharmaceuticals in this Province. On a regular basis, drug subsidies have gone from $50 million in 1994-1995 to approximately $90 million in this year. It has gone from $50 million to $90 million. Mr. Chairman, we have had petitions presented during this session of the Legislature calling on government to add new pharmaceuticals to the formulary.

Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge there is nothing that we would rather do than for me, certainly today as minister, to be able to rise and say that some of these pharmaceuticals in the treatment of arthritis or Alzheimers that people are advocating on a regular basis and that we do hope, in the very near future, we will have the resources to be able to add them to our formulary, but, Mr. Chair, they come with a price tag and it means making decisions, setting priorities. That is what it is about. The fact that we have grown the program, from 1994-1995 to this year, from $50 million to $90 million certainly speaks to the commitment. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, is this money well spent? I think the people of the Province would concur that it is. It certainly is not reflective of a fact that this is a government that is spending out of control, that this is a government that is not making good choices.

Mr. Chair, cardiac surgery: We have had questions -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is now up.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chair, I want to say a few words on Bill 7, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. The reason why I, personally, cannot support this piece of legislation, Bill 7, and members on this side of the House cannot support this legislation, is because - there are a number of reasons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: If members opposite want to listen and quiet down a bit, they will hear my reasons and the reasons why we cannot, on this side of the House, support this piece of legislation.

Now, Mr. Chairman, they want an extra $200 million. That is what want to borrow. If the government had not taken the $100 million out of the Labrador Initiative Fund, they would probably be looking for $300 million. They do not really tell us what they want it for. They took $100 million our of the Labrador Initiative Fund to put into the deficit, and last year they came out and said that the deficit was going to be something like $80 million or $90 million and, in actual fact, it worked out to be $473 million.

Mr. Chair, I listened to the Minister of Fisheries, I listened to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, the Minister of Health and a few more, up speaking on this issue, Bill 7. I was interested in what the Minister of Government Services and Lands said. He talked about us, on this side of the House, talking about voodoo economics, something they like to talk about. He said, all we want to do on this side of the House is to lower taxes and to increase expenditures. Now, for a starter, Mr. Chair, I do not see anything wrong with lowering taxes. We are taxed to death in this Province.

MR. NOEL: You want more spending (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If the Minister of Government Services and Lands would listen, he would

find out how we could be spending more money. If he would just settle down and listen, I will tell you.

Now, he talked about how all we wanted to do was lower taxes. If he would go back to our policy manual in the last election, he would find out, and he is well aware of it now, from being in this House of Assembly, that during the last election - I know I have to address the Minister of Fisheries on this one, because he was saying that we, the party, all we wanted was to support tax breaks for the big businesses. Now, listen to this. In our last policy manual we wanted to cut the payroll tax. Now, the payroll tax, Mr. Chair, is a tax on jobs that was brought in by this administration. If you created a job in your business you were taxed on it. Can you imagine what a regressive tax that is? But, that was okay. We wanted to cut that out the last election. They said: No, it cannot be done. Where are you going to get the money? Well, what happened? Right after the election they adopted our policy on the payroll tax; one idea that we had.

Also, we wanted to cut the income tax for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador during the last election, in our policy manual, in black and white. Get our policy manual and compare it to theirs. It was not in theirs. We couldn't do it; the worst thing in the world, can't be done. What happened after the election? They listened to us again and adopted our policy.

Also, we wanted to increase the minimum wage. How are we the party of the big business? You are dreaming over there. We wanted to increase the minimum wage. Could not be done, Mr. Chair, could not be done, but there we go, it was done, another one of our policies adopted. Then they have the face to get up on that side of the House and say that we do not support the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, lets talk about why we do not want to support this bill, Bill 7, for $200 million. Because this government has not been up-front with the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have been mishandling the money that they are responsible for each year, Mr. Chair. They have been telling the people, trying to sell to the people for the past four years, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, that the deficit was going to $33 million in 1999, worked out to be $187 million. Why should we trust them? In 2000 it was suppose to be $33 million and it worked out to be $269 million. That is from the Auditor General and from their own auditors in the Department of Finance. This year the Minister of Finance was up saying that the deficit was $90 million. During the doctor's strike, a $90 million deficit. The minister came in here and made a Ministerial Statement the first week the House opened and it was going to be $60 million. They cut back $30 million. What came out? The Auditor General and the auditors of the Province, their own Department of Finance, $473 million this year, and they want us to support, to give them $200 million more, and we do not know what they are going to spend it on. Not likely, not from my perspective.

Let's talk about the great financial management that this administration is doing. The Minister of Government Services and Lands talked about it, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture talked about it, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment talked about it. The Minister of Health talked about the great management of the financial resources of this Province.

We will not talk about 1989 when they took over, but from 1994 the provincial total debt was $6.5 billion. It took from 1949 to 1994 to get to $6.5 billion. Today, it is $8.9 billion. It has gone up $2.4 billion in eight years, some 37 per cent, and they are handling the finances of the Province responsibly? Not in my books you are not, and not from most of the people I talk to, I say to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Government, Services and Lands.

Let's look at the Auditor General's report. We have this year's here, we have last year's here, and each one is similar. They have broken the Public Tender Act, they have broken the Financial Administration Act, and it is all okay, fine, not a problem with it. They are deliberately ignoring the recommendations of the Auditor General.

I was listening to the Minister of Education when she was up. The first thing she started off on - to have the face and the gall to do it, to start and talk about the ad campaign, how all governments put out the ad campaigns. The most recent one, of course, was the one to promote the Premier, $250,000. The one before that, the same summer, $750,000 for Voisey's Bay, and we had the ad campaign to tear apart the doctors. We do not know how much that one was, over $1 million. The minister was talking about the ad campaign. This ad campaign, Mr. Chairman, this one, $250,000 for the people of the Province to pay to try to get the Premier's picture in the paper; $250,000! But, when she was on her feet: Good things are happening. The headlines here, Mr. Chair: Good things are happening in the Province. The Minister of Education, when she was on her feet, did not talk about how, in the past year, people going to food shelters in this Province has doubled. By the way, 85 per cent of those going to food shelters are on social assistance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, you could look at it both ways. Food banks is the proper terminology; I thank you for that.

When she was on her feet she did not talk about - we are looking at money, how we could spend more money. The Minister of Government Services and Lands asked us where we could get it. Well, now, I am after giving speeches in this House of Assembly many times about the court cases, how we have wasted $150 million and not one job created. We have the Trans City deal. I could get into each one in detail, but I have listed them before.

Let's talk about another $103 million that we could have had in the Minister of Education's very own district, Marystown. Let's talk about the Marystown facility. I have to laugh at them; the members on the opposite side throw across the Sprung thing, back fifteen or twenty years ago, whenever it was, $23 million. Let's look at how bad it was. Twenty-three million dollars spent, it created 300 jobs for two to three years, isn't that shocking? Yet, these guys can go out and spend $150 million and not create one job, and that is okay. They can go down to Marystown and sell a facility, $86 million, and not create one job, sell it for $1 - what a deal, $86 million - give away $10 million in penalties - $96 million - not a job created. They sold it for $1. The company that bought it, sold it for $7 million, and made $7 million on it. Now we are up to $103 million that we should have had in this Province, not one job created, and they talk about what a great job they are doing managing the financial situation within the Province of Newfoundland.

Now, there is $103 million and $150 million from the legal court cases that the people of this Province had to pay for. Now we are up to $253 million, no jobs created, so that is $250 million there. They talk about us wanting to lower taxes. Well, maybe in the near future they will sit back again, when they are putting the budget together this year - I am not sure if they will be putting a budget together this year. We have between now and the end of March, but maybe they will sit back and look at some of the things that we have been saying again, and say: Listen, they are making great sense over there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make some comments on this particular bill and on the comments that have been made by some of the hon. members. I wanted to make some reference to the comments made by the member, my good friend representing Waterford Valley, I think it is. In his comments he talked about this government claiming to be open, Mr. Chairman, claiming to be open and yet bringing in one of the most stringent and one of the most powerful weapons in Parliament, that of closure, stymieing debate.

Mr. Chairman, let me say this: In terms of openness with respect to legislation, this House has never been more open in the history of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, hon. members have never had placed before them, in the history of modern government, legislation with so much lead time. I ought to know what I am talking about. This legislation that we are dealing with today, this has been known since some time last spring. Has it been debated in this House before? Has this loan bill ever been mentioned in this House before, prior to last week when we brought it for debate?

Mr. Chairman, last spring it was mentioned day after day, the loan bill. What was the stand of the Opposition? They were not going to give it to us unless we told them the manner in which the money was going to be spent.

This process happens every year, annually, that a government looks for a loan bill. It is not to spend money. Nobody seems to be able to get that, to grasp that point. It is a loan bill to take care of obligations, to take care of loans and other things that the government may be able to amortize if it finds a good interest rate. Maybe not one cent of this money will be used, maybe not one single penny. The government got it to give them this advantage, this opportunity to renegotiate their loans if the interest rates are right. It is what is called prudent management of the people's money, and hon. members opposite are being very irresponsible not to approve this bill to put the government in a position to be able to amortize loans and debts at cheaper rates. That is the idea of this, not to spend.

The Opposition House Leader mentioned coming into an election year, giving the people the false notion that coming into an election year, this government will be irresponsible and spend the money on capital works. It cannot be done, Mr. Chairman. It cannot be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: It cannot be done, and that is the false impression that they are trying to give to the people of this Province, that coming into an election year we are going to borrow this money and we are going to be out spending like drunken sailors. Mr. Chairman, that is giving a false impression to the people of this Province.

We are getting this money so that we can use the money in a manner that is advantageous for the people of this Province, to renegotiate loans as they become due, if the interest rates are advantageous, if the interest rates are low. If not, we will not touch it.

Mr. Chairman, this is giving the government that kind of liberty, that flexibility, to improve the financial borrowings of the Province, but this money will not be spent on capital works and this kind of things that hon. members speculate will be spent during an election.

Either they do not understand or they are trying to spread the notion that this money is going to be spent inappropriately. I think enough has been said about it. We cannot tell hon. members how the money is going to be spent because we do not know. We do not know if interest rates will be favourable to do anything to improve the financial situation with the Province, so it is pretty difficult. We could say that it is all going in towards the public debt. We could say that. If we can find that financial markets are very favourable, we could take that $200 million and put it into the public debt if we could borrow at a very low rate. You could do that, and it would be irresponsible for members opposite to deny the government that kind of flexibility to be able to do that kind of borrowing.

No, Mr. Chairman, not borrowing to spend money for an election, on roads, on water and sewer. That is not what it is for. That is not what it is meant for spending. It is for borrowing. It is to give the government borrowing authority.

Mr. Chairman, it has been debated. The hon. critic for Finance, the Member for Ferryland, spent nine-and-a-half hours and he spoke about this bill many, many times. We had fifteen bills that came from last spring. When this House opened, the weekend before, every bill that we were going to present, members had them. They were in front of them. Mr. Chairman, openness, this House has never had bills before them with the lead time that we have been doing since we have been government. They have seen the bills. They have been in front of them. They know the content of the bills.

I just want to make a comment, Mr. Chair, on the - I have commented on what the loan bill is for and I have commented on the openness of government. I say this to the hon. member, we did not close off debate. Not to give them to say they did have insufficient time to debate the bill, this bill has been on the Order Paper since last spring. Everybody knew about it and it has been debated almost every day, eluded to. Even though we did not bring the bill, specific, before the House, but it has been debated in the general speeches, been debated enough that they told us they were not going to approve it, they were not going to approve the bill. We have told them what the bill is all about but they are just digging their heels in, Mr. Chair, with no intentions of approving the bill, and trying to give the impression that we will be spending this in election year, recklessly, when we cannot do it.

The hon. gentleman mentioned closure, Mr. Chair, as if that was something awful. I can tell the hon. gentleman this, as we get more into the parliamentary calender, closure is going to become a tool that is going to have to be used more frequently. Ottawa uses it rather routinely, nothing said about it, because they have time on their bills, they have a calender. They know when they are going to open and when they are going to close, and if they did not have closure they would never get any bills passed at all. So, when the time comes to close the House they just bring in closure, and it happens rather routinely.

I do not know how many times it is done, but probably ten or fifteen times in the last session. All the time it is done in Ottawa and that is the House we use as an example. I cannot say about the other provinces. We are a little bit more advanced than some of the other provinces. Where you have a timetable, where you have a calender, if that calender is going to work you are going to have to use closure, and have it used a little more frequently. I tell the hon. gentleman, it is a useful tool and it would not be there if it were not a useful tool for government.

The hon. gentleman talked about the Auditor General, and so many other people talked about the Auditor General, talked about how the Auditor General talked about this item and that item for years and years. First of all, Mr. Chair, the activities of the Auditor General, like so many examples in life, they evolve at one point in time. This particular item becomes very important, an Auditor General's work on that, and try to advocate that particular procedure. Let me tell hon. members this, all of the items that are identified by the Auditor General today, weaknesses in this area, weaknesses with respect to public tendering, the Crown agencies, they have been around ever since I have been a member. Ever since I have been a member, every Auditor General, go back to the 1980s, recommends that these Crown agencies have to report to the House of Assembly. Why is it not done? I do not know. We have not evolved there yet. There are things we have done that we have evolved, and we take the Auditor General's report -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is now up.

MR. LUSH: Just to finish, Mr. Chair, if I may?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

MR. LUSH: I just finish by saying, and with respect to -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. LUSH: With respect to public tendering -

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. LUSH: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise, certainly, to speak my piece about this particular bill. I just remind the Government House Leader, I guess you did not hear the words of my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, a little earlier, because it appears that when you change sides of the House, you change how you look at closure and how you look at loan bills. Because, from what I heard - and I cannot repeat it verbatim - you talked about, in 1987, or the Government House Leader talked about, bringing the Province to the abyss, I believe were the words that were used.

So, if we are looking at history, and I think it is history that we should look at, I think that we should look at the current history and not go back so many years and pick out bits and pieces here and there. I think we have to look at the situation that is presented to us today, and the situation that is presented to us today is that a government is bringing forth a bill, a loan bill of $200 million, and, in actual fact, what they are asking this House to do is to place trust in them. Trust is, certainly, a very key part of this whole exercise and the trust would have to look upon the credibility, to look upon, I guess, the past performance of the current government. We do not have to go back to the 1970s or 1980s, all we need do is go back into this decade because this is the decade of this particular government.

I just reference, Mr. Chair, the recent Auditor General's report. Whether or not there is a repeat of phrases, terms, or directions of the last few decades, we have to apply it to this particular time. Just going back to the Auditor General's report, in a nutshell, the Auditor General is indicating that not enough information is being provided to the members of this House of Assembly in dealing with the financial matters of this particular Province; that there have been very few, if any, performance plans that are put forth by this government, by their departments and by their agencies; that we have the issuing of special warrants when, in actual fact, those deeds are in contravention of the Financial Administration Act; that we have Crown agencies that are borrowing without authority; that the Public Tender Act has been breached on any number of occasions. This is the history, Mr. Chairman, that we certainly have to look at. In looking at this particular history, this current history, I, for one, am not prepared to just give this government a blank cheque.

Accountability is a big part of this government's responsibility. The funny thing about it is that - and I certainly listened to the Minister of Education as she got up and talked about all the funding that has gone into education over the last number of years. Certainly, I, for one, do not have any difficulty with putting proper funding in place, but in putting funding in place you have to have some degree of accountability. Accountability is a key issue, again, in my standing up against this particular bill because, as far as I am concerned, this government has not demonstrated to, not only myself but to the Auditor General, to the public at large, that they certainly have put checks and balances in to demand some degree of accountability.

As Education critic, Mr. Chairman, I certainly would like to have just a few moments to talk about the boards, I guess, the funding of education through our eleven school boards in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is interesting to note that, with regard to the schools boards, they are governed by legislation. In being governed by legislation, they have to audit their books and put that audit in to the minister. Their budget goes in to the minister, and approval has to come from the minister in order to receive additional funding, or any funding I suppose. It is important that we note that the school boards are trying to live up to that commitment - not all of them, for different reasons. The school boards take their accountability to heart. Here we have a government that is not required to put any performance plans before - they can come into this House and ask for funding, ask for a blank cheque, and yet the school boards are required to do whatever measures are possible to make sure that their budgets are balanced and that all funds are accounted for.

In particular - I am going to use School District #5 as an example, Mr. Chairman. I use it as an example because it has been coming to my attention that right now that particular school board, School Board District #5, Baie Verte/Centre/Connaigre, is struggling to put forth a budget to the minister for approval for the upcoming school year. They have great difficulties, because just looking down through some of the information on that school board, we find that this particular school board has to come up with close to $250,000 in order to balance their budget for 2003-2004.

In order to do that - they cannot cut into school utility, cleaning costs, support salaries that are under contracts, and administrative salaries; there are certain areas that they certainly cannot - really, the only way that they can balance their books - by the legislation they have to do it - they have to balance it through cutting back on the purchase of instructional materials, cutting back on teachers' travel associated with professional development and in-servicing. They have to cut back on repairs and maintenance of the building. They have to cut back on furniture and equipment associated with replacement of student desks. They have to do these things in order to recover $450,000, almost half of a million dollars, in order to balance their budget.

What I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, is that these cutbacks would have to be at the expense of the students. These school boards, not only District #5 but most school boards, if not all school boards, have had to cut these services, cut these instructional materials, in order to balance their books - and balance is the key here. They have to be accountable. In looking again down through it, over the last three years they have not purchased a computer for their schools. They have not overrun the substitute teacher budget. They have only allocated twenty cents per square foot of repair and maintenance of their buildings. Once again, twenty cents a square foot is far less than perhaps the $2.50 that we have the luxury of enjoying in this particular building.

The bottom line, again, is that this government expects to be treated in the sense of being given a blank cheque without any accountability. At the same time, they are turning around and they are insisting that there be accountability with regard to the boards - in this case, the school boards.

I say, Mr. Chairman, in looking at the record of this government and how they spend their money, again I reference the Minister of Education who talked about or was justifying the ads. Of course, some of my colleagues have already gotten on their feet and talked about the cost of these ads - the latest ads where the Premier is certainly advertising himself in an effort to bring his fortunes up in the polls a little bit more. Talking about $250,000, you are talking about Voisey's Bay PR campaigns of close to a million.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: I would just like to finish up, Mr. Chairman, in saying that I certainly do not support -

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: - this particular bill, and I am not about to -

CHAIR: I am sorry, the member does not have leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: - give carte blanche to this government.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago the Government House Leader stood in his spot and said that this government is the most accountable government ever in this Province. He went on to say that every Auditor General's report for decades has said the same things that this one is saying. You can go back to the 1980s and it said the same thing that this Auditor General's report right here is saying, but that I find rather amusing because in the Auditor General's report it says: "...as far as reporting information to the House of Assembly is concerned, this Province is now further behind than it was in the 1980s and the early 1990's...". So, it is now further behind than it was in the 1980's and the early 1990s.

The Auditor General goes on to say, "In my opinion, the only way that this situation will ever be resolved is through legislation which specifically requires that Government departments, all Crown agencies and Memorial University of Newfoundland prepare and publish annual performance plans and performance reports and have them tabled in the House of Assembly."

Mr. Chairman, in fact, this government is not the most accountable in the Province's history and, in fact, the Auditor General's report is more damming on this particular government than it has been in the 1980s and the early 1990s. It says so right in here.

Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader can stand on his feet and try to preach to this House and try to preach to the people of this Province that this government is more accountable, but we know the difference and the people of this Province know the difference and they are saying that very clearly and very loudly in the polling that this Province is seeing today.

Mr. Chairman, it says here: In order for the Members of the House of Assembly to discharge their responsibilities in assessing government's performance, government has to provide information that can be used for that purpose. The information should show how much funding was provided by the Legislature, what was planned to be accomplished with this funding, and how much of that funding was actually spent and what was actually accomplished.

Now government are asking, under this loan bill, for $200 million. Government are requesting $200 million and they are not going to provide us - Mr. Chairman, without this bill being voted down, they are not going to provide this House with details of what that $200 million is for. They are not going to provide this House, or the people of this Province, with the details of what they want to do with that $200 million.

Mr. Chairman, $200 million, when you look at the population of this Province, amounts to almost $400 for every man, woman and child in the Province. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people I have spoke to over the past couple of days and told them what this bill is about, and the fact that this bill is going to require that by March 31, 2003, that $400 per person in this Province is going to be expected so that government can expend that money, they can have that money, they can borrow that money, without any reasonable explanation to this House as to what that funding is for.

I am not going to stand in this House and vote for this particular bill when there is no explanation from government as to where or what purpose that $200 million is being borrowed for.

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

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to rise on a point of order.

The hon. member must inform the people of the Province accurately, if he is going to attempt to inform them. Every cent of money, as I said yesterday, every dollar that goes through the coffers, the Treasury of this Province, is adequately and appropriately accounted for in two or three different ways in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: For the hon. member to make the proposition that we borrow money and that we are unaccountable for how it is spent on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province is a gross ‘infactualization', if not an untruth.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, the biggest gross ‘infactualization' that I have seen in this House today was by the Minister of Mines and Energy just now, because he stood in his spot and refused to tell us what the $200 million is being borrowed for, and that is the point why we on this side of the House are voting against this bill. They stand in their spots one after one and try and tell us that they are the most accountable government in Newfoundland' history. They try and tell us that they are accountable. The Auditor General tells us otherwise.

The Minister of Mines and Energy just stood in his spot and tried to tell us that they are accountable, that they are accounting for every penny that they borrow, for every penny that they spend. They have not told us what that $200 million is for.

MR. LUSH: You will know (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: We will know, the Government House Leader says. We will know what it is for in a few months' time when we are on that side of the House and we give an explanation to the people of the Province as to why you borrowed it, because you are not going to tell us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: You are not going to tell us, I say to the Government House Leader.

The Minister of Mines and Energy just stood in his spot, without any great reason, without any great explanation as to what the $200 million is being spent for, or being borrowed for, to waste the time of this House, to waste another member's time.

Mr. Chairman, this House, the people of this Province, deserve to know why $200 million is being borrowed. This House, the government, the Premier, the Government House Leader, the Minister of Mines and Energy, have not given this side of the House any explanation as to why that money is being borrowed, and I am not going to turn my back on the people of this Province and vote for this bill when there is no explanation as to what that money is being borrowed for.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I will adjourn the debate until we come back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, it has been agreed by all parties, all members, that we recess until 6:30 p.m.

CHAIR: This House now stands in recess until 6:30 p.m.


December 19, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 49A


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

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I say to the hon. member, I will not pontificate on the upside down Christmas tree. It is not my specialty. It is not my area of expertise and I take no credit for it nor do I take any blame, of course. My wife will take all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Green Bay (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, there is an upside Christmas tree on the road from Robert's Arm to South Brook. I have seen that tree and as best as I can tell you, it still stands upside down on the side of the road. It is still in its place.

To the debate that we are having in the Legislature tonight with respect Bill 8, the loan bill, I think a few comments on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Bill 7? Bill 8 was the one we passed last night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: Good. So, a day behind is not bad.

Bill 7, the loan bill, an authority to borrow $200 million. I think the speaker today, the hon. the House Leader, sort of put it in context when he made the point very clearly and very accurately that this is, in fact, not about spending. It is simply about a bill that gives us authority, as a government, to borrow money to use for budgetary purposes throughout this fiscal year if we need it.

I think the thing that is a little disturbing - and I know it is the Christmas season, Mr. Chair, but I have to say that, notwithstanding, it is a bit disturbing to be listening to members on the other side of the House stand in their places and, one way or another, sometimes in very different ways, try to spin the proposition that this is somehow different than it has happened in other years; it is somehow a different bill than comes into every Legislature, virtually, in the country year over year; there is something suspicious and sneaky and not right about it. That is a very, very serious spin to be putting on the debate with respect to this $200 million borrowing bill.

It is simply, Mr. Chair, a tool of management that every government uses, year over year, as it plans its financial and fiscal activities through the Department of Finance in every government. This is no different than what would happen and what has happened in virtually every Legislature or every time this Legislature in this Province has met since Confederation. Just about every year there is a borrowing bill. It comes in in the same manner that this bill has arrived on the floor of the House. It is debated, to some degree, in terms of the requirements that the government is likely to have for borrowing throughout the year. Then it is normally passed as a routine piece of business in the House.

For some reason, Mr. Chair, this year the Opposition seems to think that there is some political opportunism, some political gain to be had, some political advantage to be made by stretching out and having the debate on this borrowing bill go through extraordinary discussion in the Legislature. We, on this side of the House, are not disappointed that we get a chance to debate in this fashion. The fact of the matter is, we all get equal debating time, equal speaking time in the House of Assembly. So, to the extent that they get up and make ‘spurrilous' comments or offer up scurrilous, ‘spurrilous' comments to the extent that they offer up suggestions that this is somewhat not right, is not fair to us or to the people of the Province and indeed, it is not fair to themselves.

The point I would like to make tonight in speaking to this, is simply this: That this bill is a very, very standard, a very ordinary, a very simple piece of legislation that will enable the government, if it so needs, to borrow up to $200 million to manage prudently, effectively and efficiently the fiscal affairs of this Province. And less there be any doubt in anybody's mind who might be listening, every cent - as I have said on two or three occasions - that goes through the Treasury of this Province is fully and completely accounted for, not only in the budget that the Minister of Finance brings down in the spring, but also in the public accounts of the Province that is tabled generally in the fall of the year in this Legislature.

I offer an assurance to the people of the Province, Mr. Chair, that this particular bill is nothing more than routine in nature. It is nothing more than appropriate in concept. It is nothing more than a management tool that government uses. It will allow the government, through the Department of Finance or the Minister of Finance's office, to manage in a more effective way and in a way that reduces the cost of government in the financial and fiscal affairs of this Province.

I say to the hon. members and to the people of the Province in conclusion, next year, as sure as night follows day, as sure as the sun rises after the moon sets, as sure as we breathe, if we live and we are still on planet earth, next year any borrowing under this $200 million loan bill, Bill 7, will be fully and completely accounted for in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: We will be held to account and we will be happy to be held to account for every cent that we spend, whether it is revenue that we collect through taxation methods or whether it is money we have had to borrow on the markets to deal with our fiscal situation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I have had this discussion, privately actually, but we have had it in the House as well with respect to the comment that I made in answer to a question in the spring about providing a list as to what we are going to do with the money. It is as simple as this, Mr. Chair. The potential is there for us, if we have a deficit that was projected in the budget of $93 million, that we will use $93 million, if we need to, to cover a deficit, up to $93 million of this $200 million potential borrowing, to cover off the deficit. We have said that from day one. We have said it rhetorically in the House and the people of the Province understand, very simply, what it is. Therefore, what is left? There is $107 million that we might borrow, which may not be used for deficit purposes. If we borrow that $107 million, that $107 million will not necessarily be spent in any particular area. It will only be spent in a specific area where we feel we have a requirement to spend more money than we have allowed ourselves by way of votes in the Budget in the spring of the year.

The answer to the demand for a list from the Leader of the Opposition or from the House Leader on the other side, is simply this: We will borrow the $200 million only if we need it. We will spend $93 million of it only if we need to cover off the deficit, and we will spend the $107 million that is left only if we need it to provide essential public services to the people of this Province.

What are essential public services? I believe we all know what they are. They are things such as health care. They are things such as educational needs. They may be required in the department of social services. There may be extraordinary costs to clear the roads this winter. We do not know what kind of winter we will have throughout the Province. We hope there are savings in all of those areas, particularly in maintenance areas, but if we need to spend more money, we have the flexibility to do it and do it on the basis that we will fully account for it when we come before this Legislature in the spring, and certainly when the public accounts of the Province are published next fall.

Also, I say to the hon. House Leader from the other side, as happened this week, next year again we will receive an Auditor General's report. Now, the people on the other side may think, with the controversy that they might be alleging should be surrounding the Auditor General's report, that we would rather not have an Auditor General reporting. Well, I can tell you, nothing could be further from the truth. We are happy -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I never said anyone said it directly, but you would get the impression. I read from your body language.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I read from your body language that you are trying to suggest that we might not like the Auditor General or his report.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, nothing could be further from the truth.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: We voted on this side of the House, unanimously, for the appointment of the current Auditor General -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is now up.

MR. MATTHEWS: - and we stand by the support that we have given to that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say, in conclusion, that we look forward year over year-

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

I ask the minister to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: - to be held accountable to the people of this Province through every report that gets tabled in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to have a couple of minutes to have a few words to say about Bill 7, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.

I would just like to say to the hon. members across the way that this issue of borrowing money, to me, it seems it could be a reasonable argument if you spell out specifically what you want the money for. As the minister just said, if it was paid down on deficit, the $93.3 million, then I certainly would not have any problem supporting a loan bill to acquire money to do that type of thing, because it is a specific use and a specific reason to borrow money.

Mr. Chair, in the years that I had in business, I had many customers come to me and say: Well, give me credit. I would give them credit and after a few months, after trying to collect the money, it became difficult to do that. One customer in particular who I remember, who owed me $25,000, said, after about three months trying to collect: You don't have to worry about your money. You are guaranteed your money. You are going to get it. Then I built up a bit of trust for that customer and I gave him another thirty days. Thirty days later I tried to reach him and that customer was up in Toronto. I never did get my $25,000.

When you are giving someone permission to deal with large sums of money - we are not talking $2,000; we are not talking $200,000. We are talking $200 million. That is a lot of money. If the Minister of Finance decides she needs a large amount of money to apply to a deficit or some specific reason, with purchasing things for the needs of the Province, then why not call this House back? Why can't we come here and debate specific reasons for borrowing large sums of money?

If it was $200,000, I could say, yes, okay, we could do that. When you are talking $200 million, with that large amount of money, then we must be very responsible to make sure that - the people on this side are comfortable enough to say: Yes, we can support any money bill if we know what that money is going to be spent for. To date, we have not had any evidence at all, other than maybe you want to pay down on a deficit if the interest rates are lower and it is feasible to do so. That is legitimate, but it only applies to probably $60 million. What about the other $140 million?

I do not mind if the Minister of Finance comes and says, if we are going to borrow this large amount of money, we are going to spend it on health care, we are going to spend it on education, we are going to spend it on the roads, we are going to spend it on home care for seniors, or we are going to spend it on home improvement for low income people. I have no problem with supporting a money bill that is going to put money into doing things for the people of this Province who are in dire need of getting things done and dire need of getting help in the home, (inaudible) particularly seniors, and child poverty has not been addressed in this Province.

We have to make sure that when we decide we are going to borrow large amounts of money that we are going to make sure that this money is designated for specific uses dealing with the needs of the people of our Province. If we do not do that then I think it is irresponsible, for not only the people on the government side but on this side, to stand here and give you a blank cheque to go and borrow $200 million when we do not know what that $200 million is going to be spent on.

I would say to the members on that side, if you went to the bank tomorrow and you asked the bank manager to loan you a large sum of money, the first thing he is going to ask you is: What do you need this money for? Do you think that somebody is going to loan you $200 million without knowing what that money is going to be spent for and spent on? No, it is not going to happen in the real world. So, why should we be here tonight and support government to borrow $200 million when we do not know what you are going to spend it on? You supply specific lists of things that you need the money for, and if it is reasonable, and if it is for the needs of the people of the Province, then I am certainly one member here who has no problem standing up and being counted in voting for that bill. I would not hesitate one bit.

If we want to even just look at some of the things that you should be doing, I know in my critic area alone, in Forestry and Agrifoods, we have a dire need today with forestry conservation officers who are driving pickups with 350,000 kilometers on them. They are afraid to go off the main road because they do not know if they are going to make it back on the main road again. There was a special warrant in 1994 to buy fifty pickups for the department. Those pickups have not been replaced since 1994. We have conservation officers sitting in their offices because they do not have a vehicle to drive, to go out and do their job.

If that is the kind of thing you are going to borrow $200 million for, then I am all for it. I am all for it. If you are going to borrow $200 million so we can have enough manpower to put in forestry, and go out there and do the type of work that needs to be done, inspections and monitoring the paper companies and the sawmill operators, to make sure that they are not overcutting, then I am all for it, but that is not happening.

Today we have district offices with one conservation officer doing the work of six, ten and twelve years ago. There is something wrong. There is something wrong with the system, there is something wrong with government, when they do not identify specific uses for large amounts of money like $200 million. If you are serious about borrowing $200 million, then be serious about where you are going to use it. Come to us and let us know what you are going to use if for. Every critic on this side of the House has areas where there are big needs for funds to do the job that the department should be doing.

They only have to look at education. We have School Board - District 5 in Central Newfoundland which this year is going to have a $450,000 deficit that they are required to handle. They have been doing a great job in the last four or five years of restructuring, doing the necessary things that have to be done to make sure they fall in line with the Department of Education guidelines. Today they have to pay a big price, today they are $450,000 short, and they are worried about how they are going to make up that shortfall. Where are they going to get this money? Is it out of the $200 million that you are going to borrow? Is that one of the needs that is going to have to be addressed? If it is, then I am all for it, but you are going to have to convince me that, if you are going to borrow $200 million, it is going to have to be used for the needs of the people of this Province, to address the needs of education, child poverty, senior citizens' home care and drug use for seniors. There are a lot of seniors today who are on specific drugs but are on low income and cannot get help from government.

If you are going to borrow $200 million to address the needs of these people, then I, for one, will be all for it, and I will certainly stand up and vote for it. You are going to have to specify, you are going to have to be specific, on where you are going to use that money, because a year from now we could be back here going through the Budget, debating the Budget, and finding out that: okay, $140 million hasn't been spent where we expected you to spend it. We are challenging you now to tell us where you are going to spend this money. If it is for debt relief, debt reduction, taking advantage of interest rates, fine. Today, we learned that it is only going to address about $60 million. Mr. Chair, I think that we, on this side, are not going to stand up and just vote for a loan bill that gives you a blank cheque to take this large amount of money and spent it God only knows how. We certainly don't know.

Today, we can look at cases and incidents where government has been challenged in court because of mismanagement of public money, mismanagement of public projects. It has been challenged and lost. Hundreds of millions of dollars today are gone through challenges in our courts. Those hundreds of millions of dollars today could be used for our health care, education, and road systems. That money that has been wasted by government, that has been spent unnecessarily today, we should be here talking about the good things and debating the list of things that you want done.

Mr. Chair, we should be more concerned about how we could make $200 million with our resources. With respect to our - I remember back in 1965 when the Trans-Canada Highway was first opened. I believe the slogan at the time was, "we'll finish the drive in 65, thanks to Mr. Pearson." At that time the Trans-Canada Highway, from one end of the country to the other end of the country, was finished. The reason was to transport people and goods from one end of the country to the other. Today we have another need. We have a need today, not transport people out of the Province, but we have a need today to transport a product -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is now up.

MR. HUNTER: - it is called electricity. There should be a transmission line from one end of this country to the other so we can transport our electricity and make money for it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to rise and say a few words on Bill 7 this evening. As you know, it is important that government be able to meet the growing needs that are out there in our Province, to be able to meet the social and economic demands that are always placed on us as a government, Mr. Chairman. We have to give due diligence in meeting those commitments. That is why, when the Minister of Finance brings forward a bill like this this evening, it is so that she has the ability to go out and conduct the business of government in a very prudent manner in order to seek out the best interest rates in the market at the time to be able to meet government's commitments and government's responsibilities within our Province.

I listened this evening to the members opposite speak, and just recently to the Member for Windsor-Springdale, when he stood to his feet and said: If this was for education, if this was for health care, if this was for transportation I would support this bill. I can say to the member opposite, you should support this bill because that is exactly what it is for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: This bill, Mr. Chairman, is about doing just that. The member went on to say that there is absolutely no way that I would support this, absolutely not, under no conditions. But, I can tell you that this government has made significant commitments and significant contributions to the social and economic well-being of our Province, and we are continuing to do so. Mr. Chairman, we are acting on the need that is out there in the communities. That is why any investments that we make will be made in a way and in a manner that is appropriate and is what is asked for by the people.

I want to just go over a couple of things because I think we quite often forget where we are investing. I look at, just in home care alone, because home care to me is one of the most important programs that we deliver within this Province. It is quite obvious that it is important to this Administration when you look at the fact that since 1997 we have invested almost $32 million extra into home support programs across this Province. We have done everything from providing wage increases for home support workers, as well as providing additional money for program costs. When you look at nursing recruitment and retention alone - because I think it is important to highlight these things. What we did with the reclassification of registered nurses in order to give them additional salary, I think it was $17 million that went into that program. As well, what we did for the licenced practical nurses. Something like $18 million, I think it was, went into that particular program to allow nurses to work their full scope of practice in that field. These were significant contributions.

Look at what we did for recruitment and retention packages for nurses in remote Labrador communities, and our commitment to the rural incentive program for nurses which is ongoing at $75,000 a year. These are all things, Mr. Chair, that we need to be able to finance, be able to pay for, so that we can streamline our health care system and provide a better service to people out there in our communities.

A while ago the Member for Trinity North was speaking in the House and talking about cardiac surgery. I want to point out to the member, because sometimes I think the facts are really lost on us in terms of what our commitments are and what our investments have been. You look at what we have committed to cardiac surgery alone. In 1999 there were 485 surgeries done in this Province. In 2001 there were 693, and that was simply because of the attention that was paid to the issue by this Administration and the amount of investment that was made by this particular government. If we had not done that, Mr. Chair, we would still be doing 400 surgeries a year; not over 600, almost 700 surgeries. I think those things need to be pointed out. Quite often I think when members opposite are standing on their feet and talking they tend to forget where a lot of the investments are being made and some of the good things that are happening. When you look at what the need is within the Province and how great that need is, sometimes I guess it is easy that it becomes lost on you.

I can tell you something that has not become lost on me, Mr. Chair. In recent weeks, when I have been sitting in this House of Assembly and I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition stand in this House and say that there is a deal on the Lower Churchill Development when, indeed, and in fact, there was no deal. I think it is quite evident, quite clear, for the people to see that we would like to have a deal. We are pursuing it. We are negotiating it. We are looking at all the options. But, indeed, we did not have a deal. At the same time the Leader of the Opposition stood in this House and said that there would be no smelter as part of the Voisey's Bay project. The jobs would not be there in Argentia. When the reality really is, Mr. Chair, that the environmental assessment process is ongoing for a smelter and refinery at Argentia; that there is work being done; there is a commitment, a signed commitment, for those types of investments in that particular area. Again, that was not factual information and it was without merit.

Again, when the Member for Ferryland stood up in this House and accused this Administration of not following the proper regulations of the Financial Administration Act, that we had violated something, totally false, totally not factual, totally without merit, Mr. Chair. The Minister of Finance stood in her place and pointed out, quite eloquently, I might say, every single date that every warrant was filed and for what purpose it was filed. Mr. Chairman, again an action that was unfounded.

The Member for The Straits & White Bay North stood in this House and accused the Minister of Fisheries of having spent fisheries grant money for advertising purposes. Totally false, totally without fact, totally without merit, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Fisheries made all the facts known, all the grants known, to the people of the Province.

There were no apologies forthcoming on either one of those particular issues, yet they were unfounded, yet they were without merit, yet they were not factual, Mr. Chairman. It just goes to show the level of desperation, the level of discussion that has taken place in this House without warrant, because it has been without warrant; no doubt about that.

When you look at it, Mr. Chairman, in fact they did not want to know where the money for fisheries grants was going in this Province. No, Mr. Speaker. They wanted to make accusations but they didn't want to know where the real dollars were being spent, and that is to meet the needs of people in communities in this particular Province. There was a detailed list that stretched right from the Burin Peninsula to the Bonavista Peninsula to the Northern Peninsula to the Labrador Coast, right across this Province, Mr. Chairman, to Fogo Island, to Burnt Island and everywhere else. That is where those dollars were being invested, Mr. Chairman. There were no apologies for that stuff.

There are a number of things that we could certainly talk about, but I think it is important to point out that any money that would be granted under this particular bill will be granted to be invested into the people and into the communities of this Province, to meet the growing social and economic needs that we are faced with each and every day in our communities. Mr. Chairman, that is the fundamental role of the government to do that. It is certainly not a bill where money will be used with no accountability and with no consideration for the mandate and for the responsibilities that we have. It is totally false to even insinuate such a thing.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk, just a little, about some of the comments that were made in the Auditor General's report with regard to the Strait of Belle Isle ferry service. I can honestly tell you, Mr. Chairman, without any discredit to the Auditor General, that the ferry service on the Strait of Belle Isle today is better and the best that we have ever seen in our entire lives in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: That particular service, Mr. Chairman, is carrying anywhere from 28 to 30 per cent more people on an annual basis than it has for the last five years. Year over year we have seen tremendous growth in the number of local people who are traveling, in the growth in the tourism industry and in the number of vehicles that are being transported. Mr. Chairman, I can honestly tell you that in the past year there have been very few times - I could probably count them on one hand - that that boat has not been able to fulfill its commitment on that particular service. The only times she was unable to do it, Mr. Chairman, was because of the wind and the weather, which were out of our control and out of the control of the operators to be able to provide that service. I can honestly tell you, Mr. Chairman, that with that service today we are getting a longer service each and every year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Last year alone we ran that ferry nine months as opposed to eight months, which has been our history to do so. In June, July and August months we were running that service two times a day, and this year we were up to three times a day.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Chairman, just to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MS JONES: I understand I am not being granted leave, Mr. Chairman, but I can tell you -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take her seat.

MS JONES: - as I sit, it does not end the good news and the good investments that this government has made.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, I am one of the rookies in this Legislature this fall. I thought I had been doing pretty good, but I must say I am leaving here now a bit confused. I say that because it is my understanding that when a bill is brought to the Legislature it is presented by the government, discussed, read three times, then voted on and, if passed, it becomes law.

I know that on my way home to Badger's Quay tomorrow, if I am driving 120 kilometres an hour in a 100 kilometre zone, if I am caught, then I am going to be charged and fined accordingly for contravention of the Highway Traffic Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Chairman, after reading the summary report of the Auditor General - there are twenty-six pages - I notice that on every page there is reference made to the government of contravening some section of an act in this Legislature. I would like to make reference to a few of them. "There are two pieces of legislation which set rules relating to the financial operations of Government - the Financial Administration Act and the Public Tender Act. As in other years, my Office continues to identify instances where government and its agencies have contravened these acts."

I heard earlier today, I think, reference made by someone on the government side that they have respect for the Office of the Auditor General. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, what kind of respect that is, when you have people contravening the act year after year.

The other part, "There were a number of examples during the year where government contravened the Financial Administration Act including the issuance of Special Warrants..."

I go over to another section, "While other jurisdictions have been developing and implementing ways to modernize and improve their performance reporting, as far as reporting information to the House of Assembly is concerned, this Province is now further behind than it was in the 1980s and early 1990s, when some departments were preparing and tabling some form of annual report in the House of Assembly."

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to make reference to a comment made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture this afternoon, and I hope he is listening. He made reference to the payoff of debt of somewhere around $235 million, of which almost $200 million was incurred when this Administration was in place, and he made reference to a number of items in particular, but I thought I heard earlier this afternoon, when someone was speaking about that particular item, that most of that $200 million was made up of loans advanced to fishermen in this Province. I am not sure if that was right or not, but I thought that was what I heard. I hope the minister is not objecting to some of the loans that were made in that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: I would like to make reference now to another section in the summary of the Report of the Auditor General. It says, "In October 1992, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador (ENL) made its first loan of $500,000 to the Company..." - and they referred to it as Company A - "...to purchase equipment.

"Since the initial loan of $500,000 in 1992, ENL has advanced five additional loans..." - to that company - "...totaling $949,365. In addition to this $1,449,365 in loans, ENL also paid professional fees of $29,343.... As at 31 March 2002, ENL had recovered only $233,300 of its investment resulting in a balance owing of $2.22 million..." - for one particular company. "The Company has not made any payments since October 1998 and the entire outstanding balance is considered by ENL to be doubtful of collection."

Furthermore, "Our review indicated that ENL decided..."

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly do not want to mislead the people of this House. It says on page 59 of the Auditor General's report that yes, indeed, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador stuck the government for $10.9 million that we cannot recover; but, Mr. Chairman, you have to remember who headed up ENL: Mr. Doug House, who is now working for the Opposition as their economic guru.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I remind the hon. gentleman that it was still this Liberal government that incurred it.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to refer to comments made by my friend earlier this afternoon, the Member for Port de Grave, when he made reference to the document: Securing Our Future. I thank him for making reference to a comment that I made in the presentation that I gave. I also remember something else in that document, or I think it was that document, Securing Our Future, with respect to the fishery. At that time, Mr. Chair, the comment was made with respect to the future direction of the fishery, that the government was looking at a number of regional core plants around the Province. What happened to that regional core plant concept, Mr. Chair? I can tell you what happened after 1995, when the government began to issue extra crab licenses: Conception Bay, Mr. Chair, already had two crab plants, they issued three more; Trinity Bay had three crab plants, they issued three more; and Bonavista Bay had two crab plants, they issued three more. Mr. Chair, that was the time when the government should have issued and extra license to St. Anthony and Burgeo, when they were talking about regional concept for the fishery in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having some difficulty in hearing the member, so if the members could keep it down, please?

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to make reference to a comment made by my friend, again, from Port de Grave, when he mentioned the Upper Churchill and the 4,000 or 5,000 jobs that were created during the construction.

I can speak from a first-hand view of that project, because I worked there for three years. I worked with a French-Canadian company, in the office, and I was the only English speaking person in that office. They employed about 1,000 people. I know what the hiring practice was on the Upper Churchill. Mr. Chairman, it was not uncommon to see a good, qualified , hard-working Newfoundland carpenter come and work on that project with that company and, after a day or two, to see him shipped home, fired, not qualified to do the work. The day after, a requisition would go to the Quebec manpower and you would see a French-Canadian carpenter in that Newfoundland carpenter's place. That happened dozens and dozens of times at the company where I worked. I saw cement finishers, the same thing, Newfoundlanders replaced by Portuguese from Toronto and Montreal.

We had about 1,000 workers and about forty supervisors, and not one supervisor was a Newfoundlander. They were all French Canadian. If you went into the bunkhouses and saw the janitors and cookies, they called them, in the kitchens, that is where you would see the Newfoundlanders, in the lowest paying jobs on the project.

I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, and if and when Voisey's Bay gets going we are going to have the same problems up there. I can foresee now a number of major labour problems up in Voisey's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to say, with respect to Bill 7, that I have to decide: Do I believe what the Auditor General has said in his report, an independent person reviewing the affairs of the government, or do I believe the government -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is now up.

MR. HARDING: - who is administering their own affairs with very little control or supervision from anyone else?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Chairman, my last word -

CHAIR: The member's time is now up and leave has not been granted.

MR. HARDING: Okay.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to make a few quick comments, if I could, in regard to this bill, but probably more specifically to some of the comments made this afternoon from members opposite.

To begin with, again, it is always nice for the people of this Province to have the full story, because when you only get a part of the story it is misleading; maybe not intentionally, but it does not tell the whole story. For example, the Member for Bonavista North got up here tonight and referred to this little pamphlet, a summary of the Auditor General's report, and talked about two companies that the Auditor General reported on, Company A and Company B.

I would suggest it is not proper to talk about something that you do not know the full facts on, because I think you get yourself in trouble that way and you probably cast aspersions upon people who are involved in these companies unintentionally.

These companies are identified in the Auditor General's report, but as Company A and Company B for a very explicit reason. It is because this information is confidential. We have had a lot of talk here in the last twelve months about the Privacy Act and everything else. These companies are still in business. These companies - maybe the members opposite do not care - are in business in rural Newfoundland, something that the people on this side of the House care very much about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: These companies have a choice. You can take the hard and fast rules of a auditor if you wish. As the Auditor General himself says, he has a job to do and rules to play as an auditor, and you can call the loans that Company A and Company B have, if you wish, Mr. Chairman, and cast these people into the darkness and into the wilderness and shut them down, and put them on the rolls of EI, if you wish, but that is not what this party is all about over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: What do we gain as a people in this Province if, for the sake of collecting back on the loans, we call the loans?

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the member for St. Anthony-The Straits, might do me the courtesy of explaining what I have to say. I do not think I interrupt anybody on that side of the House at any time, and I ask you, Sir, to have the courtesy of listening to me, because maybe you do not want to hear what I have to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: If these companies are still in business, they are still providing employment, Mr. Chairman. I, for one, am not prepared to encourage anybody to call loans that are going to put people on the rolls of welfare or on EI in this Province, and that is exactly what calling these loans would do, put these companies into bankruptcy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I move on, Mr. Chairman.

I was (inaudible) this afternoon and I sat here and listened to the Member for Cape St. Francis talk about Marystown. There are pieces in the Auditor General's report that don't get heard. We can flash around the little brochures all we want. This is the full text and I invite anybody over there to read it all. This was one of the comments that was made in here about the Marystown deal. The Member for Cape St. Francis made a comment. He said, $10 million was foregone. The company made $7 million on the Marystown deal. Absolutely incorrect! The company, Friede Goldman, did not make $7 million on the transfer of the property in Marystown to Peter Kiewit and Company. The $10 million penalty was foregone. There is nothing hidden here. The decision was made to forego the $10 million so that we would expedite the deal with Peter Kiewit, so that rather than closing down the business the business would continue to operate under the new management, in a new venture, as a fabrication yard. The $7 million went -

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for Cape St. Francis, to a point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would just like to correct something that is being said here this evening by the Minister of Justice.

With respect to the Marystown facility that was sold, an $86 million facility that the government sold for one dollar and didn't get any money back, he is now talking about a $10 million penalty that was foregone. What he is not telling the people out there is that who forgave this $10 million penalty was the Minister of Justice and that administration over there. Ten million dollars!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe the Member for Cape St. Francis might not interrupt anymore and take my time that I am trying to use so wisely here.

The $7 million, Mr. Chairman, that he referred to was used by Friede Goldman to pay the creditors of the company. Many of those creditors are Newfoundland and Labrador owned companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: We had no problem whatsoever in seeing these creditors get their money. None whatsoever! We are not afraid to inflict prosperity on the people on the Burin Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: We talk about a future -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, to a point of order.

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

Again, the Minister of Justice is saying that the $7 million was paid to small companies in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to remind the Minister of Justice that that facility was $86 million they got for one dollar. Why should the taxpayers of this Province have to pay for that? Why didn't Friede Goldman have to pay that $7 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, the other point I would make is that the assets we are talking about here included lands, included buildings, and included equipment. I don't remember ever seeing anybody, any company, take either the land or the building or the equipment off the Island of Newfoundland. It is still in Marystown. It is still being used to create employment.

In fact, I refer to page 200 of the Auditor General's report which was the statement that came out of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and I think it sums up very well what is happening in Marystown now.

"The Marystown operation currently enjoys strong private sector ownership and management that is generating significant employment and other economic benefits for the local area and the Province as a whole, without any subsidies from the Province that characterized the history of the operation as a Crown corporation from its inception ..."

Now, I think that is a pretty good move.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, accountability works two ways: sometimes you have to account for what you do and other times you have to account for what you don't do. This Administration has not been afraid to make decisions that have been in the best interest of people in rural Newfoundland, and that is what happened in the case of Marystown.

We have heard propositions from past Blue Books about: do not put money into business, do not do this, you are wasteful and you are wanting, and so on. All this Administration is concerned about is being accountable to the people; to the people who voted for you, the people who expected you to do the best in their best interests, to use their dollars wisely and to create employment opportunities for them in their communities. This is what this Administration is about, rural Newfoundland. I think, in fact, it would be very useful if we sent a copy of these debates in answer to the people on the Burin Peninsula because they would certainly see then who stood up for them and who were prepared to stand in their way.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am going to take the last few minute, I think, of this session in the House. I was not going to stand in the beginning but I think there are a few points that should be made.

Mr. Chair, when you look across the way and you get minister after minister, the Member for Bonavista North up, first time in the Legislature, second time on his feet, interjected by points of order from the Minister of Fisheries, and then for the other lead minister in the government to stand up and tell all of us, and lecture us on this side, that we have only read the pamphlet and that nobody has read the report. I can tell the minister that accountability is what this is all about. Accountability is what the people of this Province have listened to what the Auditor General has said. Even if you omit everything that this Opposition has said, the people of this Province are still going to listen to the Auditor General's report and what has been said.

So, Mr. Chair, that is exactly what this whole debate is all about. What we have to ask, and what the people of this Province are asking: Do we trust the government to borrow another $200 million? What kind of job has this government done, not this last few months - because every time these members stand on their feet -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: One minute the Minister of Fisheries wants to do a walk through history and the second minute, another member stands and wants us to forget what happened last year, let's just deal with today. So which is it going to be? Are we going to walk through history or are we going to learn from today?

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair stood up tonight and talked about Voisey's Bay and how we are misleading people, and how there were no loopholes, and how the reality is that there is going to be a smelter. But, the reality is, there is no smelter yet. There is no site at Argentia yet. We are hoping that it will be. The government are all hoping there is going to be. She said: It is a reality. Well, it is not a reality, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The people in this Province want to see it.

You talk about loopholes, Mr. Chair, in Marystown, what corrections we could have made and deals of the past. Well, loopholes do not happen until after the fact, when everything is in motion, when we can stand here in two, three and four years from now and say: Yes, everything that the government of the day said is going to happen. Well, the people of this Province will decide that. None of us can be presumptuous to the point where we are going to say: everything that the government says is going to happen. We have a job to do, too, and we are going to continue to do that job. We are not going to apologize to anybody for asking the right questions. We are the Official Opposition now and you may learn, very soon, what you have to do as the Official Opposition. But the fact is, the people of the Province depend on us to ask the questions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: - when the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair said, again, that we have to wait to see what happens, what the reality of the day is, well, we will answer. The questions were not answered in this House day after day for the people who watched this Legislature or listened. We put the questions to the government. That is our job, that is our concern and that is what we are going to continue to do. We do not have to apologize for doing our job. You have to, as the government of this Province, for the last thirteen years, not for the last six months. Let's forget about the former three premiers in the last thirteen years. I have been here for ten years and watched this government in action. The people of the Province have watched and they will render their verdict when the times comes, whenever that may be. We will see if the people of the Province believe that this government has been accountable, as the Minister of Justice has just said. Let them render their judgement. Let them see if they are going to listen to the Auditor General's report, a full report, I say to the Premier.

As we looked at this loan bill, and to get just a couple of points on this, people of the Province - the way that government spends money, that is what they are concerned about, their priorities on how they spend money. We can go through a long list, and some of the members tonight talked about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Nobody has a monopoly on the concerns of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I respect the members on the opposite side who are rural members, who understand it firsthand, because I live in rural Newfoundland. I was brought up in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I plan to stay there; love living there. I have talked to members on a daily basis back and forth, ministers and members, and I have the utmost respect for all members who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and bring the issues to this House of Assembly. None of us have a monopoly on the concerns in those areas. All I can say to you, without the political rhetoric, that people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador are looking for money to be spent on priorities, simple priorities, basics, like a decent road to travel over, decent water to drink, for their children to be able to go to school on a safe bus and get home everyday. They are not asking for a lot.

Everyday in this House, Mr. Chair, day after day, and I have done it many times and many members have done it, stood with petitions from people who have taken the time to do it. I respect that, who took the time to say: listen, we want to get rid of this gravel road. We want to be able to take the boil order off for a change. A community in my district had a boil order for eighteen years. Do you think that they think governments have been accountable? They talk about through the years and through the history of the different governments, as the Minister of Fisheries stood up today and gave us a history lesson. People of the Province know the history of this Province. They know it. They do not need to be told again. But, do we talk about history? You have to talk about history to learn from it but, at the same time, there has to be somewhere where you correct it.

Day after day we hear members opposite stand up and talk about year after the year the Auditor General said this, so it is okay. Well, two or three or four wrongs do not make a right. Somewhere along the way it has to be corrected. We have to bring in some policy in this Province where we can stand in this Legislature with some kind of accountability that is real, that people can look at. Maybe one day the Auditor General will not have a report, line after line, as the Member for Bonavista North said, about why people in this Province do not trust governments - any government, I guess, you could say that, but any government in this Province, why they do not trust us. We, as members in this Legislature, all of us, have a responsibility to try to restore some faith back into people. When you get reports like this, that is when people start to mistrust the whole system again, and that is why people in this Province are looking for a government that is going to be upfront and accountable for how they spend the money, what they do with their money, with the taxpayers' money.

If we can sit here in this House and take that list, the extravagance, waste and the bad deals over the years, if we can take all of that and push it aside, and people in this Province can say, well, finally they are spending money on health care where it should be spent, they are spending money on roads and schools and youth, well then, I think, Mr. Chairman, the reports that we see come to this House year after year, especially for the last thirteen years, hopefully that will fade into another page of history, so we can talk about it in the history books, and say: Finally, we have the place back on tract, finally we are going to get something from our resources. That is what people are saying.

The deal on Voisey's Bay: One of these days, Mr. Chairman, we will certainly find out that, in fact - this is the same group, now, that has done this deal on Voisey's Bay, the same group that just a few short years ago, and the Member for Labrador remembers it, when we were going to send the iron ore down to Seven Islands, Quebec, so there were 300 jobs at Sept-Iles, Quebec. That was a trend that started then and people wonder if that trend is going to continue. That is what people are wondering. Because you just can't live for this year.

This is an administration that has gone through four premiers. The deck has been shuffled to a point but there are a lot of ministers and people in this government, in this regime that is in this Province. The people of the day will get the chance to render their verdict on whether the last thirteen years of the Liberal government in this Province is something they are going to hold on to or if they going to change it. We will see, Mr. Chairman, when the times comes if the people believe what the Minister of Justice said: That we are an accountable government, that we are spending money in the proper places, that we know the priorities in this Province and we are spending money wisely, and that we are doing deals that are wise.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair talked about Churchill Falls, and that there was no deal. We have heard this before, Mr. Chairman, there was no deal. Let's just say, the play with words was on. The truth is the deal was not signed, because the truth is, besides the people in the Province, besides this Opposition, there were people within there own benches who had a lot of problems with that deal. Otherwise, the Premier wouldn't have stood in this House and said that we were within days. He wouldn't have written in the Newfoundland Downhomer, as I read just this past week: It will be done before this magazine goes to print, which came to print in early December. So, how close were we to the deal, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair? Why did it really stop? What is the whole story? The deal was done. There were problems and it stopped, and maybe for good reason. Maybe one day we will find out what the real reason is as to why that deal was stopped, who really stopped the deal - and the people in Labrador and the meeting that they had in Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot to be accounted for. All I can say is that every single member in this House of Assembly, through our democratic process, at one time or another will stand up in front of the people who have elected them and they will have to put their record on the line, and we will see what happens then.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say a few words on the loan bill before the House which, technically speaking, is being offered by the government as a routine housekeeping piece of legislation, that the government wants permission to borrow $200 million as routine housekeeping legislation just in case they find an opportunity to borrow money at a good rate. That is the line that the Minister of Finance and the government is taking. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether that is the whole reason, whether that is the only reason, that the minister and the government want this bill today before we rise for Christmas.

We have another piece of legislation that is not going to be passed tonight or today, or before we rise for Christmas, and that is the bill to take over the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, the $93 million that has been objected to by the people of Labrador, by the Member for Labrador West, on an ongoing basis. Is this another way to get access to the same amount of money? Is this another way that this government can try and raise the funds necessary to meet their budgetary requirements and to meet the cash flow requirements, to meet the overruns on the budget, to meet the fact that they have a cash flow deficit from their annual budget based on the reports tabled in this House a couple of months ago? Is that the real reason that we have this legislation before us? To give the government the flexibility to avoid having to pass the Labrador Transportation Initiative bill, which would take the money out of that fund and make it available for use for general government revenues. That is a concern that I have about this bill.

Ordinarily, Mr. Chairman, I would agree that government needs to have some flexibility to manage the public debt, to manage the finances of the Province, to redeem certain debentures or bonds at an appropriate time if the market is good. I would have confidence in a government if there was a higher degree of trust and accountability coming from that side of the House.

We have just seen, Mr. Chairman, not only - and the Auditor General's report speaks for itself. It outlines in great detail the problems of accountability of this government and the lack of reporting to this House of Assembly. I would have expected the government to take that seriously and to take the criticisms to heart and tell the people of the Province that they plan to do something about those things. I would have expected that, but when the Premier turned around, after being criticized for not having annual reports from departments come to this House of Assembly for review and to give hon. members an opportunity to do their jobs, as members of this House, what was the response of the Premier? Well, we are not going to do that just for the sake of having legislation and having reports. There doesn't seem to be any real need of that.

Well, that is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because every other Legislature in the country, including the House of Commons and the Government of Canada, has legislation requiring reports from departments on an annual basis to be tabled in the respective Legislatures or the House of Commons. Why do we not have it? The Premier says: Well, we don't really need to bother with that. We don't think it is important.

Well I am sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is important. It is important to members of this House and ultimately important to the people because it is our job, on behalf of the people who elected us, to try and hold this government accountable to make sure - and not this government, any government. Whether it is this government or whether it is the previous government or whether it is the next government or the government after that, any government of this Province has to be responsible to this House of Assembly. That is what I am told the principle of Responsible Government is: that the government and their - we have a mixture in our Constitution, that the government actually sits in the Legislature, but the government is not everybody on that side. The government are the ministers of the Crown, appointed by the Premier. They may have the support of that side of the House, or the majority of the members for now, but they are, as a government, responsible to the entire House, the people on this side, the people on that side, the people on the back benches, and it is the House of Assembly that is there, under our Constitution, to hold the government itself accountable to the people.

That is our job. In order to do our job, that is why I raised the point of privilege yesterday, a point of privilege that the job of the hon. members of this House is being stymied and frustrated by the actions of government in not being accountable in this House. We have government departments, we have Crown agencies, who are obliged by law. I know the Government House Leader said yesterday: Oh, no, they are not obliged by law.

That is not what the Auditor General says. There are sixteen agencies who are obliged by law to table reports in the House of Assembly, and that has not been done. Now the Premier's answer today: They can go to their annual meetings. These organizations all have annual meetings. We will all trot off to their annual meeting and listen to their annual report and get copies of it.

Well, Mr. Chairman, there are so many agencies and bodies of government - eighty-three, I think, was the number that the Auditor General identified - we would spend all our time attending annual meetings. The fact of the matter is, these reports should be available in the House of Assembly so that we can have an opportunity to review these documents. Government departments, such as the Department of Forestry, have not produced an annual report since 1999. We have some tabled in this House. The Liquor Corporation tables their report. We have the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing report tabled today. These are reports that we get an opportunity to look at and determine whether there are issues and problems that have to be raised in this House of Assembly, which is our bound duty to do. We are called upon to do it and our work is being frustrated by this government's lack of accountability.

Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of difficulty that I have with this government's financial management, but more so with their financial priorities. You know, we give lip service sometimes to child poverty in this Province, and everyone will get up on occasion on say: It is terrible, the child poverty we have in this Province. Yet, despite constantly bringing it to the attention of this government, we do not yet have a universal school meal program. We spend over $350 million a year on teachers' salaries. I know the Minister of Education knows this. Yet we have, by various estimates, as many as a quarter of our children going to school hungry every day, not able to properly learn to their full potential because they do not have a nourishing meal, a nourished body, and they do not have proper food to eat.

Can we not find a few million dollars to make sure that every school child goes to school with a full belly, with the ability to learn? If we can spend $350 million a year on teachers' salaries to provide teachers to teach our students, can we not ensure that the students themselves are in a position to be able to learn properly? That seems to me to be a priority.

It is not a question of balancing the needs of hungry children with the needs of rural development, or the needs of economic development. It is a question of priorities, Mr. Chairman, and we have failed. This government has failed in establishing the right priorities for the children of this Province.

There are many areas, Mr. Chairman, where this government has not been accountable to people. We have seen it in the Auditor General's act. We see it on a day-to-day basis in Question Period, and we see government spending willy-nilly. Three-and-a-half million dollars to Bristol Communications in the last year, to do what? To publicize this government to try and create some sort of image that it does not have, to try and convince people that they are doing the things that they should be doing, instead of fumbling the ball, and entering into negotiations without the kind of vision and foresight that is required, for example, in the Churchill Falls proposal.

I am glad that this has not come forward to a vote. It is not something that should be counted. I am glad it is being put off, and I hope that it never sees the light of day in the kind of forum that we have heard about in the last few months. One positive result of this fall session is that the plan by government issued back in August suggesting that we could have a deal, I think it was six to eight weeks, mid-August, August 15, the announcement, or August 18, we will have a deal in six to eight weeks. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am glad we do not have a deal. I am glad the deal that they expected to sign early in November did not come to pass, and I hope that we do not have a deal on the terms that we are hearing about signed or even contemplated within the next few months.

We have to look at this totally differently. We have to look at this with a proper level of commitment to the principles contained in the Constitution, the opportunities that are available to develop the Lower Churchill on terms that are based on this Province being finally, once and for all, masters in our own house, as the Québécois say, as they did themselves when they created Hydro-Quebec to be the engine of their economic growth.

We have failed, Mr. Chairman. The vision of this government has failed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to their idea of what would be acceptable for a Lower Churchill development. So, I am glad that has not happened. I am glad that we have not gone forward with that. I am sorry to hear that government still takes it seriously. I hope the Premier has taken the message -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is now up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

I will just take a minute to clue up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Premier has offered leave. I do not know about his caucus. The Premier has offered leave, so I thank him.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I hope the Premier has taken heart from the response that has been given around the Province to the proposal. I hope that he will not feel pressured. I hope that he will not feel that he has to come up with something, that he has gone this far and he has to come up with something at the end of the day. I hope he is big enough to realize that he does not have to do that. He does not have to do that. Do not feel under any pressure, Mr. Premier. Do not feel under any pressure. Just relax. Enjoy Christmas. Take it easy and let the chips fall where they may, because, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot more at stake than the fate of this government or who is going to win the next election. The long-term future of the Province is at stake and I hope the Premier takes that into account.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased tonight to speak to the loan bill, particularly on a couple of points.

I will say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, you will never hear me call it housekeeping. First of all, it is not a word I commonly use. I have the utmost respect for people who do housekeeping, but I would never put housekeeping and routine together. With a bill so large as this, and so important, it is far from housekeeping, far from routine, and certainly one that we take very seriously. It is something that has been brought forward to us by the officials of the Department of Finance because, I would say, it is about good fiscal management. It is about the ability to take advantage of the markets at a time when it is critical to take advantage of the markets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is not something that you can bring the House together for and then decide if you are going to go to the markets and borrow. Anyone involved in business knows that these transactions are done quite quickly, and they are done in a prospective way because you want to make sure that you are able to borrow the money and take advantage of the rates as they apply.

Mr. Chair, I have been listening all afternoon. Actually, I have been listening for quite a while on this particular issue and I have noticed a lot of people have talked about various issues. What was very interesting to me all day today, particularly in light of the recent Finance Minister's meeting, in light of all of the money that is to be allocated through the Romanow Commission, that nobody even asked the question today about the very serious nature of the Romanow Commission and about how that money would be allocated for our number one priority. Mr. Chair, we know what our priorities are, the people of the Province know what our priorities are, and our number one priority is health care. Health care is a concern for all people in this Province but, more specifically, it is a challenge for legislators and government to try to meet all the growing demands and needs as my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, talks about.

I would like to take a moment to let the people know exactly what kinds of information were exchanged and what the trends that were transpiring over the last couple of days around the Finance's Minister meeting. I will come back to the loan bill, I will be very brief on this. Clearly, the issue is for all of us, particularly the smaller provinces, equalization receiving provinces, that we not receive this money through the CHST. In other words, through the program that is designed specifically for the administration of health, post-secondary education, and social services. Just to give a picture of why it is so important that it not go that way. It is because in this Province we receive $1.4 billion from the federal government; $1.1 billion of that comes through the equalization program and $300 million through the health and social transfer program.

So, for us to provide the kind of health care system we need, and the people of the Province deserve, we need to have a better equalization program. We need to be recognized for the special needs that we have in this Province around health care delivery, and it is critical for us to work together on this. I urge members opposite, as well as our colleagues on this side, to stand together in trying to identify the proper allocation formula with the federal government to make sure that we get our fair share of the money associated with the Romanow Commission and in delivering health care for the people of our Province.

I have also heard a lot about special warrants, and while it has nothing to do with this particular bill, I can say again, that all of the special warrants this government has issued in this House of Assembly have been in accordance with the law of the land, according to the Financial Administration Act. The difference between what the Auditor General says and what we, as government, believe is on the definition of urgency. I have spoken to it many times. I say again, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the urgency around delivering programs in health care for our seniors, for income support, are of an urgent nature. We stand by that decision and obviously, we will differ with the Auditor General, but I have to say, the Auditor General has made some very good recommendations, ones that we will continue to follow. We do appreciate his commentary because it is his work to look at it as an independent eye.

I would also like to say, from listening to all of the people who have spoken here today, I want to be clear, that we know what we stand for here. We know what our policies are. We know what our priorities are as a government. It is health care. It is about delivering a strong education program, a social services program. We are still waiting to hear what they stand for. We know what they are against. They are against just about everything but we would like to know what they stand for sooner or later, and I think so would the people of the Province like to know that.

The Member for Bonavista South says: we will know in time. Well, people need to know what you stand for. They know what you are against. They know what you fear.

We heard the Member for Bonavista North talk about Voisey's Bay and french people working there. I do not know of any french people working there. I do not know of anybody that has come home. In fact, I can honestly say - and he talked about the Upper Churchill and tried to link it to Voisey's Bay - for a member so new he is awfully pessimistic, I can say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Because clearly, to be here for such a short period of time and to have such a sense of dread and not even get the sense of what is happening, I think it bodes poorly. I encourage him and urge him to try to be more optimistic and hopeful to the people of rural Newfoundland. We know what we stand for and people know what we stand for. Health care has been our priority.

Again, even though nobody asked about what happened at the Finance Minister's meeting, I would say that it is a critical issue for all of us and that we need to be very aware of how that money is allocated and how provinces, like ours, have special needs which must be addressed.

We have also worked very hard on behalf of the people of the Province. In terms of our legislation, we are very proud of the Mineral and Mining Rights Tax Act. We believe we have a burgeoning exploration industry here and we feel quite confident in putting that money back into our general revenue for health and education, and all of the services that belong to the people of the Province for the people of the Province.

I would also like to conclude by saying again - and just to reassure the people, they keep saying about the trust component. I can say to the people of the Province listening, that this bill allows government to borrow the money if the market conditions are right and if it allows us, based on the best fiscal advice we get from our own officials and also from outside agencies, if we should go to the markets and borrow. If we do borrow, people are saying: Well, what are you going to spend it on? Let me say it one more time, because I have said it many times, this is not permission to spend. If, and when, this money is spent, it will be tabled in the House of Assembly. It will be brought forward as a part of a budget. It is not there as a fund to spend. It is not the intent. It is to borrow money to take advantage of good market rates and to be prudent in how you manage your finances.

I said it before, and I say it again, if you know the interest rates are going to rise and if we know we have a lot of long-term debt that we have to pay for, we can use that money into next year. It is not just for this year. It is for next year, and we may not use it at all. It is a bill giving us the ability to borrow, not the ability to spend. There is no intention to spend it. In fact, there is no intention at the moment to even borrow it. It is only if the markets dictate it. If we know we need it, then we will do it.

I will say that, in terms of history because history is important, historically speaking this very same bill, albeit a smaller amount now than in previous years - I have gone back and I will not go back through them again - but we had previous governments in the 1980s that have borrowed up to $350 million. I can honestly say that this bill provides this government with the ability to borrow.

In conclusion, I would like to say to my colleagues, and to all members of the House, that I think this bill will give government the type of authority they need if the market conditions exist. I would like to conclude by saying thank you to all members and to wish everyone, including my constituents and the Members of the House of Assembly, as well as the people of the Province, a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province."

Resolution

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

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted certain resolutions and recommend that Bills 7 and 21 be introduced to give effect to the same.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of certain mining and mineral rights taxes."

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 7 and Bill 21 be read a first, second and third time.

On motion, the following bills read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act To Impose Taxes On Income From Mining Operations Within The Province And On Income Obtained Or Derived From Persons Holding Rights To Mine." (Bill 21)

A bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province." (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, takes the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour a bill for the appropriation of Supplementary Supply granted in the present session.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 8)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR; (E.M. Roberts): In her Majesty's name, I thank Her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has at its present session passed certain bills, to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Act." (Bill 18)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City of St. John's (Loan) Act, 1978." (Bill 19)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act." (Bill 27)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2." (Bill 20)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 15)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance." (Bill 12)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Adoption Act." (Bill 14)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 13)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act." (Bill 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act." (Bill 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 3." (Bill 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act." (Bill 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill 22)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders." (Bill 30)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 31)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province." (Bill 23)

A bill, "An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association." (Bill 33)

A bill, "An Act To Impose Taxes On Income From Mining Operations Within The Province And On Income Obtained Or Derived From Persons Holding Rights To Mine." (Bill 21)

A bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province." (Bill 7)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's Name, I assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, now that I have discharged my constitutional responsibilities, you will understand that I am going to take a moment or two to make some unscripted and personal remarks.

There are three points I would like to make. The first is to say that it is a very real pleasure to be sitting in this Chair under these circumstances. In all the years I was in the House, twenty-three, I saw many Royal Assents but it never crossed my mind that someday I would be in a position to give assent to the deliberations and the conclusions of the Legislature. The pleasure is all the greater, and to show you how great it is, I have interrupted a long-planned evening at the Spirit of Newfoundland dinner theater, a Patsy Cline presentation. That will tell you how dear it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: The second is, I would like to, if I may, Mr. Speaker, commend the House of Assembly for the expedition with which they have cleaned up matters to the point where you can take your Christmas recess.

Ten years ago, I sat in this House. I have sat on both sides, as you know. I think the only one left to my right is not here at the moment, the hon. Member for Ferryland. He and I came into the House together, at the same time, but those on my left who were here in the winter of - I am sorry, my friend from Humber Valley was then on my right, now on my left. Those of you who were here that December night will remember, it took us a twenty-seven hour sitting before we could get the Christmas adjournment, so obviously things have improved since I left the House of Assembly.

Thirdly, let me say very sincerely, on behalf of Eve and myself, we wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year. We will see you soon.

Take care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to have the adjournment put by the Government House Leader, if I could just make a few comments at the close of this session.

I appreciate the cooperation shown particularly with the Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, in terms of expediting the business of the House, as His Honour has just referenced. I do congratulate everyone in terms of the attention that was paid to the myriad of issues that were brought to the attention of the Legislature in the last month or so. They ranged, of course, from financial and fiscal matters - which we concluded here just a little while ago - a loans bill and things with the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act and so on, and all things that are important to the Province; social agenda items with respect to the new legislation on Human Resources and Employment; the cellphone ban for safe driving in the Province; freedom of information, and other issues that have economic impact; the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, to have an orderly opening of the fishery again in the next season, in the spring; as well as the forestry amendments for, hopefully, a secure future for a mill in Grand Falls-Windsor with the Abitibi chain. In fact, wrapping up a session at the end of what has been, in my view at least, a very good year in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2002.

I think we are poised to go on to 2003 with confidence and hope in a future that should be secured on a good, solid base; and to say thank you on behalf of everyone on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. I know that others will speak for the others to echo the sentiments to yourself, Your Honour, as the Speaker. I know you had to bring us in-line a few times in the last little while. For the Deputy Speaker, the Chair of the Committee, the Clerk and the staff at the table, the Sergeant-at-Arms, who is always doing a great job for us with the Commissioners - we all felt very safe and secure here for the whole time - and, of course, the staff at Hansard, the staff in the Broadcast Centre, our Pages - which at this time of the year is difficult for them because they are combining duties here with post-secondary studies that are usually around exam time. They made an exact effort to come and work with us here in the Legislature - and everyone in the House, all members of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, for full participation in what I really and truly believe was a most productive session.

As we take a break for the Christmas season, again, on behalf of all the members on this side we would like to wish all members of the House, and all the people whom I mentioned in terms of supporting us in the last while, the very best compliments of the season, a very merry Christmas, as His Honour did say, and all the best for a very bright and hopeful 2003, and to say that we will all be invited back here again, I am sure, sometime in the New Year as we lay out a Throne Speech to plan for the future, from the government, and go on about the business of governing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that we have all been given the great privilege to do.

Thank you to everybody, Mr. Speaker, and compliments of the season to everyone involved in the Legislature, and for all the people in the Province, particularly those who took the time to tune in, say, on the parliamentary channel and watch the proceedings live. I don't know what the numbers are, but I do know there are people in the Province who take a real interest in it and are interested in knowing what their elected members are doing in terms of debating the issues on their behalf.

With that, I wish everyone the very best of the season and look forward to seeing us back here sometime fairly early in the New Year to resume the business of governing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise, of course, and I agree with the Premier and certainly accept his best wishes.

It has been an interesting session of the House, I must say. For me, every session, of course, is a brand new session which gives me a chance to get some experience. I certainly enjoyed the comraderie, the banter, the debate, the thrust and the blows back and forth. I must say, as each session goes on, I feel a lot more comfortable, from a personal perspective, and certainly enjoy the company of everybody in the House, particularly, of course, the members of my own caucus, the members of the NDP and government members opposite. It is a true learning experience, I think, for me and I must say I am thoroughly enjoying it. This particular session I particularly enjoyed. It was only a month but it seems like a long time ago that we started this session. We are probably all a little tired and a little weary after what was perceived to be a long session, but it was really only a month ago. A lot of work was done here and a lot was accomplished, as you can see by the legislation, of course, that was passed.

Also, there is a very, very important discussion that went on during this session of the House of Assembly, with the Lower Churchill deal that was before us. Obviously there were diverse views on both sides, and questions. There was a lot of electricity in the House, I think it would be fair to say. It generated a lot of debate. A lot of ideas were transmitted back and forth across the House, tempers escalated from time to time, but ultimately the deal was recalled and I think that is probably really in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, however, to wish a very, very merry Christmas to all the members of the House, the members opposite, the government members, the members of my caucus, members of the NDP caucus, and to you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience.

It is not easy to sit in that Chair and referee a group but, by comparison of other Legislatures across the country, I think we are a very well-behaved Legislature, to be quite frank, and I think that is how we stack up. We do have our moments and you have managed to keep decorum in this House and I certain commend you for it. I said today that I was hoping we could sort of behave ourselves as a Christmas present to Your Honour, and I think we have behaved reasonably, to say the least.

I do thank you for your patience, and as well thank all the Clerks and the staff in the House of Assembly, as well as the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Commissionaires who are in the galleries, all waiting to go home - I am sure they have other things to do this evening - as well as the security, who contribute to everything that goes on in this House.

Of course, the people in the back rooms who we never see, who have to listen to our rants and our ravings every day and then record it as sensibly as they can, and the unsung heros of the Legislature, the people in Hansard, of course, as well as the media. I would also like to thank the media, on behalf of the Opposition, again for attending every day and, of course, sometimes finding it even difficult, I think, to even hear from the gallery some of the things that are said during the day because of the heated debate that goes on, but that is normal parliamentary behaviour and I am certainly sure that they appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity as well to thank our staff in our office, on behalf of all the members, for the hard work they have put in. As well, in my Corner Brook office, in my District of Humber West, the people there who work and toil every day on my behalf and, of course, the people who work and toil on behalf of all the members.

As well, I would like to wish a very, very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to my own constituents in Humber West, the people who have supported me, the people who have given me the great honour of standing in this House of Assemble, and I thank them very much.

I would also like to thank the families of each and everyone here involved in this Legislature. They also make a sacrifice. They are the ones at home this evening, waiting for all of us to come home because there are things to do. There is Christmas shopping to be done, there are presents to be bought, there are trees to be decorated. There are all kinds of things to be done, and that cannot happen. Of course, hon. members who live outside the City of St. John's are anxiously waiting to get home and their families are waiting for them.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my own family for probably putting up with me as we go through this. We are gone seven days a week. We work seven days and we work seven nights a week, but they are very tolerant. Again, they are the unsung heros, so I certainly thank them for, as I said, putting up with me. Again, I would like to wish all a Merry Christmas.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we come here four days a week and many nights a week and, even through we debate issues back and forth, we are all working on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to wish to all the people, health, happiness and prosperity through Christmas and throughout the New Year, because there is nothing more important, Mr. Speaker, as we know, than our own personal health. I think that is priority number one to all members of this Legislature.

As well, I have said time and time again, the people of our Province deserve prosperity. We have waited long enough. We have toiled hard. We have great human resources, we have great natural resources, and I think our time has come, and I think jointly we can work together. Premier, as you know and the Minister of Fisheries knows, tomorrow we are all going to be coming together on the fisheries team, basically, with some of the MHAs, all the MPs and the Senators tomorrow afternoon and, of course, we will be working on the very, very serious problems with the fisheries. My colleague from The Straits & White Bay North and my colleague from Lewisporte as well will be at that meeting, so there is an example of how we do work together on a very, very important, the most important, matter at this particular point in time to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we look forward to that tomorrow. So, our day and our night does not finish tonight. It goes on as it will go on through Christmas. Jointly, we can work together.

A few final points. I wish all the very best to Beaton Tulk, who served for so many years in this Legislature and who has obviously taken up a new position. We will certainly miss him. We certainly miss him here in the Legislature. Beaton was certainly always entertaining, but I do wish him well in his new position.

As well, I would like you also to remember Bob French, if you could, during Christmas. Remember his widow, Betty. Of course, as you know, Terry has been with us and Terry certainly seems to be fitting in like a glove in the House of Assembly, but we all have good memories of Bob and I think if you would just find a little point in time, some time Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, to recollect and to just think about some of the fine things Bob French has done in this House.

Finally, a special welcome to Harry Harding, the Member for Bonavista North, and Terry French, the new Member for Conception Bay South.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would just like to wish each and every one of you a very, very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year. All the best.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the session that we have been through.

First of all, I am a little surprised that the Lieutenant-Governor would be so unaware of the sittings of the House that he would actually book Patsy Cline on a night like this. I had the good sense to go to Patsy Cline's show on Sunday night, knowing that the House would not be called into session on that particular time. I am a little surprised that the Lieutenant-Governor would not know that he might be called upon at any moment this time before Christmas.

I think all of us recognize what a great privilege and honour it is to serve in the House of Assembly, to represent our constituents in this forum which debates the issues of the day and passes legislation. Although this past session has shown we have a great deal of political differences over issues of the day, over what government's plans are, there is a high degree of cooperation that goes on.

I think in this session of the House it was pretty evident that although there were a lot of different pieces of legislation, there was cooperation on matters where issues were raised on this side of the House. The Minister of Forestry accepted an amendment to his legislation to provide for a full consultation down the road when these leases will be up again. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Municipal Affairs recognized that some of the legislation needed a little work before it needs to come to the full house. These kinds of things go on in the background, that people do not often see the level of cooperation that we do in our jobs, aside from doing our political work in representing our various parties' interests and points of view.

Also, both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition have mentioned, all the many people who make it possible for us to do our work. It is not just the people who happen to have the privilege of speaking in the House, but the Clerk; the Clerk's assistant at the table; the Law Clerks, who help with legislation; the Sergeant-at-Arms; the Commissioners; the Pages; the people in Hansard who, as the Leader of the Opposition said, have the task of writing down and typing out everything that we say, no matter how lengthy and boring it might be from time to time; the people in the Legislative Library, who are available with research on a moment's notice while the House is open; our office staffs who work diligently to make things happen; the Security Guards who do their job as well. There are an awful lot of people who work to make our Legislature, the people's House of Assembly, where we do the work of the people - we have our differences but we also are human beings with commonsense and a lot in common as well as we go about our work.

Let me say, I want to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House, and all of your constituents and everybody in the Province, a very Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year in 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am not sure what the minister - give you what?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: A CD.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, they are all spoiled now. Two years ago I gave them all a CD. I am sorry, I do not have one for you this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Budgetary restraints have left me otherwise unable to provide one, particularly to my good friend, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who has been singing out for over a week that he wanted one.

Mr. Speaker, as the House Leader, I just want to thank certainly the members of the caucus for their support and doing their jobs when called upon to do it in the times necessary.

I had a call a couple of nights ago, I think it was late last week, when a constituent of mine phoned me. I was talking on a certain matter, and she said she had a question for me: By the way, Ed, who are those three fellows you are referring to all the time: Beauchesne, Marleau and Maingot?

For anybody, those are the authorities of the House, our parliamentary privilege and parliamentary law that we live by. So, for anybody who is ever wondering what the Government House Leader is quoting from, or myself, those are certainly it.

It is interesting to see the Lieutenant-Governor here tonight. I said to the Premier, shouted to the Premier, before he came in: Guaranteed, when the Lieutenant-Governor walks in, he is going to have something to say because he just cannot help it.

Sure enough, true to form, he did. I recall his presence in the House when I was newly elected. I learned a lot just by watching Mr. Roberts, certainly of what to do and more often what you should not be doing. I say that with the greatest respect, and I am sure the Lieutenant-Governor will take it that way, given the relationship that I have with him.

I say to my colleague across the House, the Government House Leader, we meet every day in terms of the negotiation of a legislative agenda and we try to move it along. I am not sure that he would necessarily agree with that, but we have certainly tried to move it along to the best of our ability, given the feelings and opinions that, for legitimate reasons, we may have that may not be representative of what the government's opinions are from a certain point of view, but, in the interest, I believe that we have established a relationship that I would hope is built on trust and that we can accept each other's word.

Let me say this, in closing, that I have a wish for the Minister of Fisheries. He was very well-behaved this year and I could only hope that he could make some significant progress in that regard in the next sitting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before making the appropriate adjournment, I just want to also endorse the statements and comments made by the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the NDP. I also express my gratitude to the Opposition House Leader for his co-operation. I am going to wake up tomorrow morning missing those rendezvous we have every morning. I can't wait, Mr. Speaker, and look forward to when it begins again.

I want to say, too, that the hon. the Opposition House Leader is becoming very adept at taking me off, my speech and my movements. I am told, Mr. Speaker, that I do move a little when I am speaking. I don't know, but I do know that in my early years there was a member here, Mr. Doody, who had a great sense of humor and great wit. He got up and asked the Speaker if I couldn't be given an extra bonus for suitage.

In any event, I also want to thank the Leader of the NDP who is also part of our negotiations. I think we have had a great session. I think we have passed a lot of practical and worthwhile legislation, and the Opposition House Leader helped expedite the passage of those bills. I want to thank them. I did want to say to the Opposition House Leader: After a few more years over there in the same position, looking at me, he might have me right down, hand pat.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy New Year, your staff, all members opposite, all members on this side, and the staffs on both sides of the House. We are a unique group of people and I think we should remember that and certainly pride those moments that we spend together sharing the uniqueness of being in political life.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it is move that when this House adjourns this evening, it is at the call of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this House to now adjourn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I put the motion, I would like to take this opportunity, as well, to join with the others who have just spoken, in wishing all the members of the House and their families a very merry Christmas and a very happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.

I also want to express my gratitude to the staff in the Speaker's Office, to the people in Hansard, to the Library people, to the people in the media room, and to the staff of both the government and the Opposition for their support and their co-operation during this session. Have a very enjoyable season and a very enjoyable New Year.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the call of the Chair.